
Gass. 



Book - 






COMPOSITION 



PUNCTUATION. 




OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 



" We have read this little book with much satisfac- 
tion ; something of the kind has been long wanted, and 
the want is now very ingeniously supplied. l My ob- 
ject/ says the author, ' is to instruct those who know 
how to read and write, but who are unacquainted with 
grammar. I propose, strange as it may appear, to show 
such persons how they may compose sentences, of which 
they may not, at least, be ashamed, and, how they may 
express meaning intelligibly, without exciting a laugh at 
their expense.' This object Mr. Brenan has attained in 
a simple and agreeable manner ; and we, therefore, con- 
fidently recommend his book to those whose early edu- 
cation has been neglected, and who are now afraid to 
enter upon all the difficulties of grammar. We shall 
ourselves present copies of it to several mechanics 
and others, in whose progress we take an interest." — 
Edinburgh Literary Journal. 

" We have been somewhat tardy in doing justice to 
Mr. Brenan's excellent little Work on ' Composition 
and Punctuation,' which is replete with sound common 
sense ; we recommend it most cordially to the consider- 
ation of our readers." — New Monthly Magazine. 

" The plain, straightforward manner in which Mr. 
Brenan explains his views is highly to be commended, 
and we are satisfied that the best-informed scholars 
will find something in his book to merit perusal. There 
are some other branches of the subject which we should 
willingly notice, if our space permitted ; but, as we have 
touched the most important, we leave the rest in the 
hands of the readers/' — Atlas. 



COMPOSITION 



PUNCTUATION 

FAMILIARLY EXPLAINED TOR THOSE WHO HAVE 
NEGLECTED THE STUDY OF GRAMMAR ; 

AXD WHERE IX 

FOREIGNERS WHO MY BE LEARNING ENGLISH 

WILL ALSO FIND INFORMATION 

CALCULATED TO FACILITATE THEIR PROGRESS IN THE 

UNDERSTANDING OF THE LANGUAGE. 



By JUSTIN 'BRENAN. 



f tjrtij ©tJttt'ou, 

CONSIDERABLY AUGMENTED, AND CAREFULLY REVISED THROUGHOUT. 




L O N D O I s ^<££]vA|g^ 
EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE. 

MDCCCXLIX. 



31 



London ; Printed by W. Clowes and Sons, Stamford-street. 



i 



NOTICE FROM THE PUBLISHER. 



From the numerous inquiries for Brenan's c( Compo- 
sition and Punctuation," the publisher is induced to 
issue a new edition. The fifth and last, though an un- 
usually large impression of it was thrown off, has been 
long since exhausted, and is now completely out of print. 
The present edition has the advantage of being super- 
intended by the author, who has carefully revised it 
throughout, and made numerous additions and altera- 
tions that much enhance its utility. Yet, though the 
work now contains more matter than hitherto, the pub- 
lisher, yielding to the prevalent desire for cheapness, has 
considerably reduced the price ; and he feels confident, 
therefore, that this edition, so greatly improved, will 
be very acceptable to all who need assistance in unam- 
bitious composition, or in serviceable punctuation. 



a 3 



CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER I. 

Plan of the Work. 

Page 

The object in view explained 13 

Reasons why persons unacquainted with grammar, 

should be instructed in composition 14 

Causes of their general failure 15 

CHAPTER II. 

First Cause of Failure in Composition. 

Long-windedness deduced from parentheses 16 

Sample of parenthetical writing 17 

Dryden — a long-winded sentence from him, with 

the correction 19 

CowiiEY — another long-winded example 21 

Directions for correcting long-windedness 22 

Clearness in oral narration and long-windedness 

in writing exemplified 24 

Advantages of short sentences 26 

Sentence and member explained, and illustrated 

by examples 31 

Sentences — caution for finishing and commencing 34 

The frequent &c. reprobated -.. 36 

Correction of parenthetical sample in page 17 38 

Long sentences — specimen of a good one from 

Robertson 39 



o CONTENTS. 

Page 
Murray — a long-winded specimen from himself, 

contrasted with his own example from Swift .... 40 

Swift — the example from him corrected 42 

Buffon — his long sentences contrasted with those 

of our own writers 44 

CHAPTER III. 

Second Cause of Failure in Composition. 

Repetition of words considered 47 

Two examples of advertisements 49 

Murray — example of repetition 51 

CHAPTER IV. 

Third Cause of Failure in Composition. 

Short sentences again recommended 53 

Examples of blunders and confusion, with a cor- 
rection 54 

LONDON NEWSPAPERS— their utility in the 
general improvement of style 57 

Their successful efforts in rational punctuation .... 58 

CHAPTER V. 

Paragraphs. 
Paragraph explained, and considerations on its 

length 59 

Montesquieu — uncommonly short chapter 61 

CHAPTER VI. 
Style. 

Irvine's list of styles 62 

Inutility of style dissertations 63 

Buffon's essay, with an extract 65 



CONTENTS. 9 

Page 
Johnson — his remarks ou Pope's " Essay on Man " 

applied to style-masters , 67 

Cicero, Quintilian, and Longinus — their services 

in teaching style exemplified 67 

Author's pretensions to treating the subject 68 

Test for style-teachers 74 

The only feasible mode of style instruction 75 

Particular definition of long-windedness and per- 
spicuity 76 

CHAPTER VII. 

Punctuation. 

COMMA. Specimens of high and low pointing .. 78 

Test for comma after small words 79 

High-pointing — its aid to grammar and syntax 80 

Considerations on emphasis 84 

SEMI-COLON. Improvement by disuse of its 

former frequency 85 

COLON. Superseded by the dash 86 

DASH. Its great assistance in simplifying punc- 
tuation 87 

Old theories of rests or pauses 88 

French explanation of the dash 89 

The colon system no aid to beauty in composition, 

exemplified from Locke 90 

Dash, now much used for parentheses 92 

Instances where the dash is the only proper stop. 94 

Suggestion for abbreviating millions 95 

Remarkable absurdity of colon use and directions 96 

Murray's sanction of stopped dashes reprobated.. 99 

Punctum minusculum 100 

Abuses of the dash , 101 



10 CONTENTS. 

Page 

LONG DASH. Examples of its use 103 

Catineau — his explanation illustrated 105 

After pointing recommended 106 

PARTICULAR EXAMINATION OF SEMI- 
COLON AND COLON RULES 107 

First appearance of semi-colon and comma 110 

PERIOD. Its use in abbreviations 113 

NOTES OF INTERROGATION AND ADMI- 
RATION 114 

CAPITALS 116 

NOTICE OF CRITICISMS 116 

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS 119 

Rudeness of Greek and Roman letters and inscrip- 
tions 120 



CHAPTER VIII. 

Some general Directions respecting Composition. 

Caution against strong condemnatory expressions 122 

Indiscriminate praising equally reprehensible 124 

Negatives — Caution against multiplying them un- 
necessarily 125 

Jingling explained 125 

Notice of the former and the latter, this and that, 

here and there, and the one and the other 127 

Curious effect from attempting to write neat 128 

CHAPTER IX. 

Directions to write for Printers. 

Various instructions 134 

Explanation of some technicalities 138 



CONTENTS. 1 1 

CHAPTER X. 

English Conjugators. 

Page 

Shall and will — various notices of them 140 

Shall and will not shibboleths 142 

Should, would, and ought 144 

Shall substituted for will 147 

Should and if 150 

Two cautions for the Irish and Scotch 151 

Conjugator — adoption of this word recommended 154 

View of English conjugation 155 

Observations on to love and other verbs 157 

Foreigners — their embarrassments by our imper- 
fect should and ought explanations 161 

Curious example of would and should 162 

CHAPTER XL 

Synonymous Words. 

Notice of synonymous words, omissions in dic- 
tionaries, and fashions of application 168 

Uselessness of too nice distinctions 171 

Beauties of English 173 



CHAPTER XII. 

Genitive Comma. 

Names ending in s, and modern use for singular 
and plural 174 



12 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

Ellipses, 

Page 

Correction of bad grammar by ellipsis test 175 

Caution respecting the test, or abuse of the ellipsis 177 
Errors from misuse of past tense and participle 178 

CHAPTER XIV. 

Very remarkable instance of Long-windedness. 

Long rambling sentence by Sir James Mackintosh ]79 
Remarks thereon by editor of Monthly Review .... 180 

CHAPTER XV. 

Antiquity of the Semi-colon. 

The " Book of Armagh " described 181 

Contains many well-defined semi-colons 182 

Remarks on its antiquity, book form, and binding 183 

CHAPTER XVI. 

A common Error in Concord. 

Case of authorised bad grammar 186 

Blunders about lie and lay 187 

CHAPTER XVII. 

A word upon Grammar. 

Encouragement for the study of grammar 188 

Necessity for knowledge of the irregular verbs .... 189 

" Diversions of Purley " — remark on 191 

Suggestion for a child's grammar 191 



COMPOSITION & PUNCTUATION 



FAMILIARLY EXPLAINED. 



CHAPTER FIRST. 



Plan of the Work. 

I have been induced to write this treatise, not 
with a design of superseding any other, on the 
subject of composition, but because I have seen 
none that condescends to take my humble route. 
I consider, therefore, that I have the field to my- 
self. Seeing an unclaimed spot, which is a thing 
not to be found every day, I have taken possession 
— nor will I give up the ground, until some abler 
pen shall warn me that I have not a good title. 

My object is, to instruct those who know how to 
read and write, but who are unacquainted with 
grammar. I propose, questionable as it may appear, 
to shew such persons how they may compose sen- 
tences of which they may not, at least, be ashamed , 



14 PLAN OF THE WORK. 

and how they may express meaning intelligibly, 
without exciting a laugh at their expense. 

Such is the task that I have undertaken. There 
are many thousands, who, though very intelligent 
and witty, believe grammar to be so uncommonly 
difficult, that they will make no attempt to learn, 
what they feel is beyond their attainment, They 
say " that all the world could not beat grammar 
into their heads — that they had, when at school, 
learned verbs, participles, and the other parts of 
speech, but that they never did, nor never could, 
understand them." 

When men take up such notions, it is not easy to 
seduce them into study. They are then afraid to 
write, because they are terrified about all that they 
hear of grammatical errors. They think that com- 
position, without grammar, must be an absurd 
attempt, and thus we are, to my own knowledge, 
deprived of many useful essays — nay even of books. 
Several of those individuals who shine in conversa- 
tion by the originality and brilliancy, and the 
weight and accuracy, of their observations, are 
afraid to touch a pen, through a fear of the alarm- 
ing requisites that composition demands. 

Now, if we cannot prevail on such persons to 
study grammar, would it not be a meritorious 
attempt, to induce some of them to commit their 
thoughts to paper ? The gratification of seeing 
themselves in print might inspire confidence, and 
arm them with fortitude to combat their ill-founded 
apprehensions— to look that science in the face 



FLAN OF THE WORK. 15 

which appears so appalling. If ever this were 
desirable, it is now, when we have grammars so 
simplified compared with those, out of which they 
vainly strove to learn, in their younger days. 

The failure of such persons arises from three 
causes : — 

First. Their over anxiety to express themselves 
clearly, and to include all possible contingencies 
and exceptions, before they finish a sentence. 

Secondly. Their fear of repetitions of the same 
word. 

Thirdly. Their not duly considering the pre- 
vious part of a sentence, which often produces ludi- 
crous errors, such as making a horse or a house 
appear to do the business of a man. 

To these I might add a fourth — their terror of 
punctuation, which seems to present insurmountable 
difficulties. 

I propose to explain, chiefly by examples, these 
three causes of failure, and to shew the illiterate 
how they may easily punctuate their writings. If 
any of the learned happen to take up my book, I 
request that they will recollect, that it is not ad- 
dressed to them. It has little to say to scholars or 
men of education, for, though they may, occasion- 
ally, find some hints not beneath their considera- 
tion, its chief pretension is, to instruct those who 
have not the advantage of grammatical knowledge. 



16 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 



CHAPTER SECOND. 



First Cause of Failure in Composition. 

This, as described, is the bane of ordinary writing, 
and, until we can find an antidote, we may despair 
of being read with pleasure, or even with common 
patience. Our work, whatever it be, is soon 
thrown aside. People do not like to wade through 
long-winded sentences — they will not take the 
trouble of connecting their various members, so as 
to arrive at the sense. The consequence is, that all 
those efforts at clearness operate as fatally as 
obscurity, except in a letter or law-document, 
which our interest may compel us to read. 

Such anxiety for clearness of expression produces, 
necessarily, those protracted sentences that are so 
fearful to the general reader. Besides, it leads to 
the use of frequent parentheses, which should be 
avoided by all who aspire above the lowest class of 
writers. In latter times, the parenthesis has fallen 
into well -merited contempt, and it is now almost 
confined to the persons for whom I have composed 
this treatise. Indeed it should never be introduced, 
except on very extraordinary occasions, or for the 
purpose of indispensable reference, and, as it might 
be unsafe to let my pupils make those distinctions, 
the best advice that I can give them is, never to 
bring it into any composition whatever. The 



IN COMPOSITION. 17 

general school definition is, that it is something that 
may be passed without injury to sense or connection, 
but I protest against a doctrine so destructive to 
good writing. Never suppose that you write any- 
thing that could be safely omitted. 

The following is a sample of this parenthetical 
w r riting : — 

I received yours of the 25th ult. (tho' I must observe 
it did not come to hand, as you supposed until the 6th 
inst. owing to the bearer, Mr. Jackson being detained 
by the heavy snows falling these some days past) and 
I now take the first opportunity business affords (which 
thank God is very good lately) of answering it, and 
which I shall do with as much particularity and atten- 
tion to all your different commands as any spare time 
(which as I said before is now very agreeably con- 
tracted by the increased business) will permit me, and 
I think you may expect them all done in three weeks 
or thereabouts (for it may be a few days more) and 
then you will be tolerably provided for, for the re- 
mainder of the winter, which (as you justly observe) 
promises to be severer than most others in our memo- 
ries. 

What a precious rigmarole is here ! But per- 
haps you will say, " well then, I shall take away 
the parentheses, and then it will read better. ,, Not 
at all. That could effect no improvement, for they 
are still there in substance, and the mere omission 
of the marks would signify nothing. You must 
endeavour to write, as much as possible, without 
those understood parentheses — if not, you will never 
attain to brevity or clearness. On due examination 
we shall find, that parentheses generally show our 



18 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

want of capacity, and very ordinary capacity too, 
for bringing into a better place something that we 
do not wish to omit altogether. Some excuse 
must be allowed, however, for the influence of old 
authority. The examples of former teachers are 
only partially exploded, and too many follow the 
spirit of the explanation in our old spelling-books, 
" I give all I have (except my watch) to Alexander." 
What an illustration ! So then an exception, that 
may prove of great importance, is only a thing 
" that may be omitted without injury to the sense !" 
Why, according to this licence, we may put what- 
ever we please in parentheses. 

There is nothing like analysis for coming at 
the truth, and I shall, therefore, examine this more 
critically. It is admitted that sentences may be 
transposed, by which is meant that we may, gene- 
rally, place the members otherwise than in the 
natural or regular order. Suppose we exercise this 
privilege with the example before us, and begin 
with the exception, see how the matter stands : — 

(Except my watch) I give all I have to Alexander. 
Here is a fair dissection of this parenthesis, for, if it 
be one, it must retain its character under every 
change of place, and yet I hardly think, that Fen- 
ning or Dilworth themselves would have allowed it 
to commence a sentence. From this you may see 
how liable to absurdity parentheses are, and how 
necessary it is to avoid them. Yet, though their 
injury to good writing is now pretty well known 
and acknowledged, they are not sufficiently repro- 



IN COMPOSITION. 19 

bated. Mr. Murray's directions for their manage- 
ment, though not all unexceptionable, are the best 
guide that I have seen. Their frequent \ise is 
the chief reason why our old English writers seem 
so tiresome. Wishing to appear very correct and 
exact, they could hardly make an assertion, without 
lugging into one part or other of the sentence, some 
qualification or exception of little importance. As 
far as my observation has gone, Dryden appears to 
be the first who emancipated our style from this 
insipid prolixity. His dedications are, I think, 
freer than any other prose compositions of the same 
age, from those defects under consideration, for 
though Lord Bacon and some others wrote before 
him, with great strength of construction, their Eng- 
lish is now, unavoidably, too antiquated for our 
present purpose. The parenthesis, whether short 
or extended, marked or understood, is plainly a 
digression in a sentence, and it should always, unless 
very concise, be transferred to the next, or so 
placed, as to read smoothly, and to glide at once 
into our conception. Dean Swift was rather sparing 
of parentheses, though they were much used in his 
time. He seems indeed inclined to ridicule them, 
as appears from the following passage in his letter 
to Dr. Sheridan, dated Clonfert, August 3, 1723: — 

Quilca (let me see) you see I can (if I please) make 
parentheses (as well as others) is about a hundred 
miles from Clonfert. 

But, though I have commended Dryden, here 
is a sentence, from his Dedication of the JEneid, 



20 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

upon which my eye has just glanced. It is newly 
punctuated by Carey, and, were it not for that 
assistance, I believe it would be very difficult to 
find out the sense : — 

Statius — who, through his whole poem, is noted for 
want of conduct and judgment — instead of staying, a 
he might have done, for the death of Capanens, Hippo- 
medan, Tydeus, or some other of his seven champions 
(who are all heroes alike), or more properly for the 
tragical end of the two brothers, whose exequies the 
next successor had leisure to perform when the siege 
was raised, and in the interval betwixt the poet's first 
action and his second — went out of his way, as it were 
on prepense malice to commit a fault. For he took 
his opportunity to kill a royal infant, &c 

Were it not for Mr. Carey's judicious punctua- 
tion, it would be a study to comprehend this 
sentence. The first and last dashes shew us that 
Statius went, &c, and all the intermediate part is a 
monstrous suspension, to be read, I suppose, in an 
abated tone of voice, as the spelling-books direct. 
Mr. Carey might, perhaps, have done well to omit 
the second dash, but it is evident that he had some 
vexation in trying to give the thing a readable form. 

Now, with great deference, I submit the fol- 
lowing construction of this ill-built sentence as 
strictly preserving Dry den's intention and meaning, 
and enabling us to read it divested of obscurity or 
trouble : — 

Statius, through his whole poem, is noted for want 
of conduct and judgment. Without any obvious 
necessity, he stays for the death of Capaneus, Hippo- 



IN COMPOSITION. 21 

medan, Tydeus, or some other of his seven champions, 
who are all heroes alike. It may, indeed, be more 
properly said, that he waits for the tragical end of the 
two brothers, whose exequies, the next successor had 
leisure to perform, when the siege was raised, and in 
the interval betwixt the poet's first and second action. 
He therefore went out of his way, as it were on pre- 
pense malice, to commit a fault. For he took his 
opportunity to kill a royal infant, &c. 

The greatest celebrity will not now save an 
author who writes in a tedious or drawling manner. 
People will not read — they will, at most, only skim 
over such composition. Though the following ex- 
ample is from the pen of Cowley, I only ask your- 
self, whether } t ou would like to go through a book 
consisting chiefly of such sentences ? I cannot 
doubt your answer, and I therefore entreat you to 
consider, that you cannot expect that we should 
read your long-winded writing, however interest- 
ing may be the subject. It has gone, irrecoverably, 
out of fashion, and it is vain to oppose the present, 
and most certainly improved, taste in the style of 
composition : — 

But if any man be so unlearned as to want enter- 
tainment of the little intervals of accidental solitude, 
which frequently occur in almost all conditions (except 
the very meanest of the people, who have business 
enough in the very provisions of life) it is truly a great 
shame both to his parents and himself; for a very 
small portion of any ingenious art will stop up all those 
gaps of our time ; either music, or painting, or design- 
ing, or chymistry, or history, or gardening, or twenty 
other things will do it usefully and pleasantly ; and if 

b 3 



a 



FIRSTv CAUSE OF FAILURE 



he happen to set his affections on poetry (which I do 
not advise him to immediately) that will overdo it ; no 
wood will be thick enough to hide him from the impor- 
tunities of company or business, which would abstract 
him from his beloved. 

As I hope that you are not weak enough to 
think, that any improvement can be effected without 
some trouble, I shall now, before you receive my 
assistance, recommend as a task, to put the paren- 
thetical example into something of a reasonable 
form. Take a pen, and try to write the whole 
sense or substance into six separate sentences. If 
you cannot do this, try five, four, three — even two 
will make a great amendment. This is what you 
should do upon every occasion. ^Yhen you write 
a letter or anything else, you generally make a 
rough sketch first, and you then copy it out afresh 
without blots or interlineations. But your great 
anxiety is about words or spelling, and you neglect 
that most important object — the proper division of 
your thoughts. You are asking this and that 
person, is not such a word better than another, is 
such an expression good grammar, or, is not such a 
word sometimes spelled two ways ? Those inquiries 
may be proper, but rely upon it that your first 
effort should be, to break all your long-winded 
sentences into small portions. This is the primary 
grand step to respectable composition. Without 
any scholastic learning, it will enable you, generally 
speaking, to write grammatically, or at least with 
much fewer errors than you would otherwise make. 



IN COMPOSITION, 23 

Keep this important fact in mind. I assure you, 
that it is much truer than you imagine, and I shall 
now put it in a plainer and more convincing point 
of view. 

In the works of our best authors, grammatical 
faults occasionally appear. Those are, of course, 
not from ignorance — they are generally ascribed to 
inadvertence. But where do you think that they 
are almost invariably found ? In long sentences. 
Now, ought not this, at once, to decide your con- 
viction ? Since a Lowth, a Blair, a Johnson, can 
thus make false concords, must it not be impossible 
for you to avoid them, in similar circumstances ? 

Suppose that you have occasion to write, u I 
intend to go to the country next week, but I shall 
take care to execute your commands first. Some of 
them are, no doubt, troublesome, but, with John's 
assistance, I am sure of their completion. The 
most difficult of them all is the large case, but even 
that is in a very forward state. When all is ready 

I shall " Now this, though plain language 

enough, is very intelligible, and even pleasing to 
read, but if you run all the sentences into one, in 
the usual manner, with ands, althoughs, notwith- 
standings, buts, ifs, your letter will be not only 
troublesome to make out, but it is fifty to one that 
you do not commit several blunders. You will be 
speaking of John, the case, or the commands, when 
you intend quite otherwise, and your friend can 
only guess your meaning by his knowledge of the 
transactions. 



24 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

People who are not well acquainted with a 
thing, generally go about it in the way that is, 
really, the most difficult. Thus, a workman will 
cut a cork across, while others will proceed length- 
ways, which requires twenty times the labour and 
care to produce an oval exterior. Long sentences 
are much harder than short ones, and demand con- 
siderably more tact and ability, yet he, who can 
hardly express his thoughts at all on paper, is sure 
to take that mode which calls for an experienced 
practitioner. A long sentence requires not only 
a first-rate hand, but great attention and judgment 
— otherwise it will be repulsive to the reader, and, 
though written by a good scholar, most probably 
ungrammatical in some place or other. 

I know many persons who can tell a story 
remarkably well, though they have no knowledge 
of grammar whatever. Yet, if those men take the 
pen to describe it, they give us a sad piece of work. 
I, who observe such things with attention, can 
easily solve this seeming paradox. Being naturally 
clear-headed, they go on regularly in oral narration, 
but, in writing, they impatiently crowd the cir- 
cumstances together. For instance, in speaking 
they will say, 

That two men entered Mr. Tyne's house in Lake 
street on Saturday night at twelve o'clock, by means 
of false keys, and stole a quantity of plate and other 
things, out of the parlour — that a boy who lay there, 
happened to be awake, and hid himself under the bed, 
when he heard them in the passage — that it being a 
moon-light night, he distinctly saw them — that one 



IN COMPOSITION. 25 

was a servant discharged about two months before, by 
Mr. Tyne — that the other was a low man about forty, 
with a cut on his right cheek — that when they packed 
up the plunder and left the room, the boy instantly 
fastened the door inside, and cried murder ! robbers ! 
as loud as he could — that they then fled, carrying the 
booty with them. 

These, and other particulars, shall be detailed 
with great propriety and order in a conversation, 
but the same people, if committing them to paper, 
cannot go in this regular train. They will pro- 
bably write, 

That two men, one of whom was a servant discharged 
by Mr. Tyne about two months ago, and the other, a 
man about forty, with a cut on his right cheek, and 
who should never be known but for the fortunate cir- 
cumstance, of a boy who hid himself under a bed in the 
parlour, and who saw them packing up, and 

Thus they will run on, until they find that they 
have not mentioned where Mr. Tyne lived, nor the 
time of the robbery, nor the moon-light night, nor the 
false keys. Then come the winches, notwithstand- 
ings, and parentheses, and we have one monstrous 
sentence that is nothing but a mass of confusion. 

If such persons would only consider, that the pen 
is but an instrument to put our thoughts on paper, 
they should discover a secret — that they could write 
as well as they can talk. But they have taken up 
the common notion, that writing is quite different 
from speaking, and this leads to the obscurity which 
has been just exemplified. Why should a pen 
require any such change ? If they speak clearty, so 
they could, and ought to, write plain. 



26 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

Numerous advantages arise from sentences of 
moderate length. Should you have to address a 
quarter, where accuracy and somewhat of elegance 
may be expected, you can easily get a learned friend 
to correct your draught, and put it into fitting lan- 
guage, if the sentences be short. But when it is 
arranged, or rather dis-arranged, in the long-winded 
style, the amendments are more troublesome than 
you imagine, and, after making a few trifling alter- 
ations for form sake, he says that he thinks it will 
do very well. Thus you are shut out from assist- 
ance that may be of the greatest consequence to 
your individual interest. 

Know then, and I pray you not to forget it, 
that long-sentenced communications are so trouble- 
some to put into proper form, that you cannot 
reasonably expect any person to do this, except one 
who is under some obligations to the writer. Know 
also, that it prevents many useful matters from ap- 
pearing in the public prints. Of this I speak from 
practical experience. I now tell you, since it fre- 
quently happens that it would be necessary to write 
out such communications entirely, to make them fit 
for publication, you must not imagine, that the 
editor of a newspaper could find time for such vex- 
atious drudgery. No, nor his humbler assistant 
neither, and yet, when your information is unno- 
ticed, you go about arraigning the venality of the 
press, when nothing but your own ignorance is the 
cause of rejection. 

It will even sometimes occur, that an article 
from a correspondent, in which the editor made 



IN COMPOSITION. 27 

some corrections, and which he particularly ordered 
for insertion, does not appear. Upon inquiry the 
foreman says, " it was put in hand and gone on 
with a good way, until the compositor found that 
there was no sense in one part that was altered, and 
I thought it best to stop, but there was not time to 
send you word." The editor, probably, erased 
some parenthesis which happened to contain a ne- 
cessary connection. Your common writers, who 
deal in verbosity, will sometimes, when frightened 
at their own lengthy sentences, parenthesise an im- 
portant observation. 1 

When you have to describe an occurrence or 
transaction, first set down all the facts, and w r hen 
you think that you have omitted none, number them 
regularly, and try to put them into their proper 
places consecutively, and into short, if not pithy 
sentences. In doing this, avoid that prattle and 
garrulity which infallibly lead to long-windedness, 
parentheses, and insipidity. If the subject demand 
remarks, reserve them for the conclusion, and if 
they be not too strong, or too tedious, it is likely 
that the whole of your communication may be in- 
serted without alteration. This will be very gra- 
tifying. The usual complaint is, that the editors of 
newspapers cut out the best part of such favours, 
but, if proper precaution be used, this cannot be 
done with impunity. 

To relate a simple occurrence, fit to read well in 
print, is amongst the hardest parts of composition, 
especially where names are either not known, or 



28 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

cannot be mentioned. For this purpose, there are 
men attached, as we say, to London papers, and 
though they have extensive practice, and though it 
is, in a great measure, a sort of knack or mechanical 
dexterity, not many succeed well. This ought to 
abate your vanity, when you find your communica- 
tion of a similar nature cut up, as you will say, un- 
mercifully. Suppose that you have to state an accident 
of a man being ridden over, you will find yourself so 
embarrassed by the horse, the rider, and the sufferer, 
that after you have finished, your narration would 
appear ludicrous enough to make us smile, though 
on such a serious subject. Here, short sentences 
will not, except with due consideration, assist — 
they will force you to an endless repetition of prin- 
cipal words, which, though admissible in philoso- 
phical disquisitions, is too heavy for common matter. 
I therefore strongly recommend you to practise 
things of this kind. Imagine any remarkable acci- 
dent, and try to explain it clearly in a passable 
manner, without circumlocution, or without leaving 
it doubtful, at any time, whether you mean one 
thing or another. A few such trials will much im- 
prove your general style of composition. 

The following may serve as a lesson. Some 
of those London w r riters of whom I have spoken, 
could certainly do it better, but, for my present pur- 
pose, it will answer well enough : — 

To the Editor of the Politician. 

Sir, — In High-street, on Tuesday evening last, at 
half-past eight, a gentleman violently jostled a poor 



IN COMPOSITION. 29 

inoffensive man, by which his foot was sprained, and, 
on remonstrance, he struck him, seized him by the 
collar, and handed him to a constable. Arrived at 
Sungate station-house, the inspector would hear nothing 
but from the gentleman, who, after lodging his charge 
for " insolence and drunkenness," went away. Although 
it was freezing hard, the inspector would not, at any 
time, let his prisoner approach the fire, and, after re- 
maining thirteen hours in this miserable situation, he 
told him, about half- past nine the next morning, to 
<' go about his business !" The man refused, alleging 
that a respectable shopkeeper could prove that he was 
sober at the time, having been in conversation with 
him only ten minutes before he was charged on the 
watch — that he was assaulted and struck for nothing — 
that his foot was sprained in consequence, and he 
wanted to know who the gentleman was. The inspector 
replied by ordering his men to turn him out by force* 
which was immediately done. This poor fellow, who 
is a messenger, can get the best character from his em- 
ployer, and particularly for sobriety. By the harsh 
treatment in the watchhouse, he has got a heavy cold, 
that has fallen upon his lungs — he could do nothing 
the next day for want of sleep, and his sprained foot 
will, for a long time, diminish his humble earnings, as 
he is only paid by the parcel. 

Now, Mr. Editor, it is clear that this victim of aggra- 
vated petty tyranny has an action against the constable. 
But you know, that the same reason that excludes a 
poor man from an expensive tavern, shuts him out from 
the King's Bench. I therefore request your insertion 
of this, for the information of the police magistrates of 
Sungate, who will, no doubt, compel the inspector to 
compensate this poor creature for his unmerited suffer- 
ings. 



30 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

I think that every thing here is of consequence. 
Even if the editor drew his pen over half-past eight, 
he would be obliged to restore it, as that plainly 
supports the thirteen hours' unjust and cruel impri- 
sonment, which is very important. Taking it alto- 
gether, if satisfied of its authenticity, he could erase 
nothing, unless he w r ere actuated by motives widely 
different from independence. I shall now explain 
how it may serve as an exercise. 

Read over attentively the first paragraph which 
contains the facts. They will soon be impressed on 
your memory, so as that you could relate them cor- 
rectly, without omitting any. I do not mean that 
you should get the article by heart — on the con- 
trary, that would defeat our object. But, when you 
can correctly detail all the circumstances, write 
down a full statement of the whole, and do this 
several times, until you think that it is tolerably free 
from the usual faults of composition. You need not 
give yourself any trouble about the order that I have 
observed, for that might admit of improvement — it 
will be sufficient if you give all the facts, without 
putting any of them absurdly out of place. 

You may also take a useful hint from the conclu- 
ding paragraph. However great my indignation, I 
have kept the editor's pen behind his ear, by not 
launching out into high-flown exclamations against 
the gentleman, the inspector, despotism, oppression, 
and scandalous violation of the laws. But I have 
done more towards the accomplishment of my ob- 
ject. I have, though tritely, shewn the folly of 



IN COMPOSITION. 31 

sending the poor man to the higher courts for legal 
redress, and I have, pointedly enough, apprised 
those magistrates, who ought to be accountable for 
the conduct of a Police-officer, that they are bound 
to see, that the sufferer by his aggressions should be 
compensated. 

If you did not, on commencing this chapter, com- 
pletely understand what a sentence means, I should 
think that you ought to know it by this time. The 
different examples furnished shew its signification, 
and my intention was, that you should find it out 
through them. I shall now, for your greater satis- 
faction, give a particular explanation. 

Without going into tiresome definitions, a sen- 
tence includes all the words that you find, until you 
come to a period or full point. In the preceding 
paragraph, there are three sentences, from If down 
to explanation. The parts or divisions that compose 
them, are called Members, and where there is more 
than one of these, the whole is termed a compound 
sentence. If there be only one, it is a simple sen- 
tence, and observe that all, whether compound or 
simple, must begin with a capital letter. 

A plainer definition of a member is, every part 
where w r e find a point, but this cannot be taken in a 
literal sense. Thus, in the following there are six 
points, that is, five commas and one period, yet 
there are truly but five members, because although 
is only a transposition, and really belongs to what 
follows after colleagues : — 

He would not accept any remuneration for his ser- 



32 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

vices, although, in the opinion of his colleagues, he was 
well entitled to five hundred, or even a thousand pounds, 
with the house and land also. 

The following will illustrate what is meant by 
simple sentences. Each, it will be seen, has only 
one member : — 

None could exceed him in candor. His benevolence 
was equally remarkable. He had no affectation what- 
ever. All his actions were distinguished by a noble 
carelessness of public opinion. This did not arise from 
pride. He was a rare example of masculine humility. 

Some writers are very fond of simple sentences, 
but their too constant use will, imperceptibly, con- 
duct to a feeble style. Their occasional introduction 
is enlivening, and, if well arranged, they are pecu- 
liarly agreeable at the commencement of an essay. 
But their management requires great dexterity, and 
I caution you against making too free with them. 
They are, too frequently, only compound sentences 
unnaturally broken, and, even when perfectly con- 
structed, a continuance soon palls upon the ear. 
You will now see that the preceding example is, 
in fact, but two compound sentences : — 

None could exceed him in candor- — his benevolence 
was equally remarkable, nor had he any affectation 
whatever. All his actions were distinguished by a 
noble carelessness of opinion, but this did not arise from 
pride, for he was a rare example of masculine humi- 
lity. 

The most extravagant use of simple sentences that 
I have seen, is in Lord Byron's u Death of Calma 
and Orla." There, we may meet four or five sue- 



IN COMPOSITION. 33 

cessively, with only from three to four words in each 
of them ! Remember, however, that Byron was a 
poet of the first order, and that those were poetical 
thoughts expressed in elevated prose. Never at- 
tempt the flights of mighty geniuses. If you do, 
you will only fall like Icarus, and hurt the credit 
that sensible men were beginning to award your ex- 
ertions. Even Lord Byron himself is, by some good 
judges, thought to have, in this instance, unnaturally 
out- Ossianed his great master of brief expression. 

It is commonly recommended in giving a general 
rule, to make our sentences of a moderate length, 
with an occasional sprinkling of short ones. This 
is good advice. I cannot too strongly impress upon 
you, thatjit requires superior ability — the powers of 
a Robertson, to compose a long sentence well. For, 
after all, the test lies with the reader, and, as it is 
for him that you are working, so you must look only 
to him. If your composition do not run somewhat 
smoothly — if the sentences be drawled out, and if 
the different members do not readily connect, he will 
have some trouble in comprehending the sense, and 
no man likes labour of this kind. 

However, it will sometimes occur that very ex- 
tended sentences are allowable, and even proper or 
necessary. But they are generally in the nature of 
detail. We may say, " He had many strange cus- 
toms and propensities. He always wore a cocked 
hat — he went to bed at nine and rose at four — he 
never went out on a Monday — winter and summer 
he wore white trowsers — he had a great horror of 



34 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

black cats — he wore a wig over his hair, which was 
always abundant — he would never have any but ne- 
gro servants.' ' Such a sentence as this, might be 
continued for a page or two, without inconvenience 
to the reader, because he is not called upon to col- 
lect any scattered links. 

In like manner, you may continue any number of 
recapitulary abstracts, which are, plainly, of a con- 
ditional nature, as thus : — 

If I am to believe all his assertions about bare possi- 
bility — if I am to argue on assumptions, and not on 
faGts — if my positive assertions are to be answered by 
conjectures — if Pascal is produced when I require Kant 
— if exceptions are constantly tendered, when I, expli- 
citly, reject them 1 may well be excused for de- 
clining any further controversy. 

We may go on here as long as we like, because if 
the reader become impatient he can, in an instant, 
throw his eye on the conclusion, and see at what the 
author aims. 

In writing of any kind, pay particular attention to 
what I have already said, to begin every sentence 
with a capital letter. For want of this some com- 
positions, otherwise terse enough, are extremely 
difficult to read, and, since this is true, how must it 
be with those of the long-winded description ? But 
I have more to say in another place, on the use of 
capitals, and shall now give some directions which 
you may find useful. 

First. Avoid finishing sentences with such words 
as for, such, with, of, by, on, to, and some others 



IN COMPOSITION. 35 

of a similar nature, that I cannot now recollect. 
They can generally be otherwise turned. Instead of, 
il and other things that he mas unacquainted with" 
say, with which he was unacquainted. " Less than 
he could purchase the horse for" say, for less than 
he could purchase the horse. " He wished to pay 
him in goods, but he was offended at his offering him 
such." This is nonsense. Why not say, such pay- 
ment ? Expressions as, " I knew it was a thing that 
he could not avail himself of," " stand by," " count 
on," " arrive to," should be changed to, a thing of 
which he could not avail himself, by which he could 
not stand, on which he could not count, to which he 
could not arrive. There are other trifling words 
also, such as it, this, not, you, has, which are not 
recommended as eligible for the termination of a 
sentence, but it is not always easy to observe such 
strictness, and therefore our best guide is, to finish, 
as often as possible, with a word of some weight. 

Secondly. Avoid, as often as you can, to begin 
two successive sentences with the same word. It is 
always a sign of being a common writer — it is dis- 
pleasing to the ear, and it even offends the eye of 
a reader. The words that are most usually repeated 
in this way are but, if, though, however, it, they, he, 
she, I, you, notwithstanding, for, then, as, having, 
and, the, this — besides proper names. You can al- 
ways steer clear of this defect, by looking at the 
preceding sentence when going to begin another. 
I may here remark that some persons insist that And 
should never commence a sentence in modern Ian- 



36 FIRST CAUSE OP FAILURE 

guages, but, without opposing their opinion, I may 
observe, that our most eminent authors use it, and 
that must pass for sufficient sanction. 

But you must particularly avoid beginning a sen- 
tence with the terminating word of that immediately 
preceding. This is a very great imperfection. 
Nothing can be worse than finishings and commence- 
ments like these : — 

but he said that he knew it. It did not, however, 
appear that 

and he only gave us words. Words will not do for 
this 

he said that be was an honester man than I. I told 
him that such an assertion 

and so he gave it to John. John then came to me 

but this was like all the rest. Rest assured notwith- 
standing 

Thirdly. Avoid the frequent &c. as your great 
enemy to improvement in writing. If you depend 
on this crutch, your composition will be always lame. 
This is the most prominent mark of a poor, vulgar, 
and ignorant writer. Such wretched scrawlers can- 
not go through twenty lines without it, and they 
think that it is a great help to correctness, and even 
to elegance. But in this they are wofully mistaken. 
Let them look into the works of Robertson, John- 
son, Melmoth, Junius, Burke, and see whether they 
used this miserable substitute for plain expression. 
It can only be tolerated to save tiresome repetition, 
or unnecessary recapitulation. 

The frequent use of the &c. arises from the 
same ridiculous anxiety for precision, that produces 



IN COMPOSITION. 37 

the parenthesis, and the folly of which, I should 
hope, that I have successfully exposed. In a de- 
scription, by one of those wordy writers, of a visit 
to a country-seat, this is one passage in his re- 
lation : — 

He entertained us very hospitably with cakes, wines, 
fruits, &c. and afterwards shewed us his library, mu- 
seum, garden, spacious stables, &c. On going away, 
he himself, together with his lady, their beautiful 
daughter, &c. &c. accompanied us to the gate, preceded 
by two servants in dress liveries, with silver-headed 
canes, &c. 

As he wished this to appear in print, he shewed 
it to me, with looks of great self-approval, and I 
altered it thus : — 

He entertained us very hospitably with cakes, wine, 
fruit — and afterwards shewed us, amongst other things 
well deserving inspection, his library, museum, garden, 
and spacious stables. On going away, he himself, with 
his lady, his beautiful eldest daughter, and others of 
his family and friends, accompanied us to the gate, 
preceded by two servants in dress liveries, with silver- 
headed canes, and otherwise completely appointed. 

I would not have made it so long, but that I 
knew my man. He said that the alteration might 
do, except about the entertainment, because there 
were ham, cold turkey, jellies and other things that 
he did not like to particularise, but which certainly, 
in common honesty, required an &c, and besides 
there were two kinds of wine, and three of fruit, 
and as I put them both in the singular, the s must 

c 



38 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

be replaced. I need not say, that I got rid of him 
as expeditiously as civility would permit. 

The &c. is now objected to except in advertise- 
ments, or in a detail of numerous articles, or where 
we refer to some long extract already quoted, and 
upon the different passages of which we have to 
make remarks. In this case, it would be tiresome 
to give the whole sentence again, and we may say, 
But where he asserts that " he went to France for 
the express purpose, fyc."I think that the date alone 
will shew Ms error. You will see however, that 
this &c. might be replaced by the long dash, when 
you come to the remarks on that subject. 

The following is a correction of the miserable 
composition in our third paragraph. I have placed 
it here, without any previous reference, in the hope 
that you would, first, exercise yourself on the im- 
provement, as I directed : — 

Yours of the 25th ult. did not come to hand till the 
6th instant. The delay was owing to the bearer, Mr. 
Jackson, being detained by the late heavy snow. Busi- 
ness has been, thank God, very good latterly, and I 
now take the first opportunity that is presented, to 
answer your letter. I fear, however, that my con- 
tracted leisure will not permit me to do that, as particu- 
larly as I could wish. But, although I cannot now 
notice all your different commands respectively, I 
think that you may expect them to be entirely com- 
pleted in about three weeks. You will then have a 
tolerable provision for the remainder of the winter, 
which, as you justly observe, promises to be unusually 
severe. 



IN COMPOSITION. 39 

The following is an instance of a long and well- 
constructed sentence. It is taken from Robertson's 
State of Europe, prefixed to his History of Charles 
the Fifth, and, though § 'it contains eighty-four words, 
there is such a felicitous arrangement that we can 
wish no alteration. The connecting chain, though 
of great strength, is of such an elastic nature that 
the members, without a vestige of liberty, seem to 
have perfect freedom. Yet a succession of such 
beautiful flights would soon tire us. Their length 
would call for repose, and you therefore see, that 
were you even adequate to the power of long sen- 
tences, you must frequently come to a truce with 
the wearied reader : — 

Notwithstanding the singular revolution which the 
invasion of the Moors occasioned in Spain, and the 
peculiarity of its fate, in being so long subject to the 
Mahometan yoke, the customs introduced by the Goths 
and Vandals had taken such deep root, and were so 
thoroughly incorporated with the frame of its govern- 
ment, that in every province which the Christians re- 
covered from the Moors, we find the condition of indi- 
viduals, as well as the political constitution, nearly 
the same as in other nations of Europe. 

One great test of the perfection of a sentence, I 
think, is, when we cannot, with propriety, introduce 
any stop except the comma. In the foregoing 
example, though extended to such a length, I would 
defy the most fastidious punctuator to put in a semi- 
colon, and as for the colon, parenthesis, or dash, they 
are out of the question. This shews that there 

c2 



40 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

is, all through, an original and positive strength. 
When a semicolon can be fitly brought in, the bond 
of connection is weakened, proportionably to the 
separation. The entireness of the sentence is cer- 
tainly, in some degree, broken, and this, as in 
architecture, must be a defect. The semicolon 
exposes the imperfections of composition, and we 
may oppose, at least, its negative claims. 

Mr.Lindley Murray has appended to his Grammar, 
an excellent set of rules for the construction of 
sentences. Yet, in this self-same book,. I find the 
following, which is a very objectionable style of 
composition, and contrary to the laws that he has, 
himself, collected. T know that it is not fair to 
take, for any particular purpose, one sentence out 
of a large work, because the most vigilant cannot 
be always on guard, but, really, this appears to be 
manufactured with no ordinary care. The parade 
of colons seems to imply, that the author thought it 
a good specimen of a long sentence. We may 
judge how far this is true, by comparing it with 
that from Robertson. One can see, from the semi- 
colon, that Mr. Murray began to find it " an 
unwieldy apparatus," yet, hanging the members on 
strong punctuation pegs, he believed that he had 
rendered the whole very manageable : — 

The observations which we have made under this 
head, and on the subject of moods in another place, 
will not apply to the declension and cases of nouns, 
so as to require us to adopt names and divisions similar 
to those of the Greek and Latin languages : for we 



IN COMPOSITION. 41 

should then have more cases than there are prepositions 
in connection with the article and noun : and after all, 
it would be a useless, as well as an unwieldy apparatus ; 
since every English preposition points to and governs 
but one case, namely the objective ; which is also true 
with respect to our governing verbs and participles. 

Though I am unwilling to swell this treatise, with 
quotations that may not be directly of use to my 
readers, I think, after what I have said of Murray, 
that I am justified in giving the following, from 
that gentleman's observations on the construction of 
sentences : — 

Long, involved, and intricate sentences are great 
blemishes in composition. In writers of considerable 
correctness, we find a period sometimes running out so 
far, and comprehending so many particulars, as to be 
more properly a discourse than a sentence. An author, 
speaking of the progress of our language after the time 
of Cromwell, runs on in this manner : " To this suc- 
ceeded that licentiousness which entered with the Ee- 
storation, and, from infecting our religion and morals, 
fell to corrupt our language ; which last was not likely 
to be much improved by those who at that time made 
up the court of King Charles the Second ; either such 
as had followed him in his banishment, or who had 
been altogether conversant in the dialect of these times, 
or young men who had been educated in the same 
country: so that the court, which used to be the 
standard of correctness and propriety of speech, was 
then, and I think has ever since continued, the worst 
school in England for that accomplishment; and so 
will remain, till better care be taken in the education 
of our nobility, that they may set out into_the world 



42 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

with some foundations of literature, in order to qualify 
them for patterns of politeness." 

The author, in place of a sentence, has here given 
a loose dissertation upon several subjects. How many 
different facts, reasonings, and observations, are here 
presented to the mind at once ! and yet so linked 
together by the author, that they all make parts of a 
sentence, which admits of no greater division in point- 
ing, than a colon between any of its members. 

a A loose dissertation upon several subjects !" 
Why the wordy author, who, strange to say, is 
Swift, confines himself to his subject, the vitiation 
of English, full as closely as Mr. Murray does in 
his three-coloned sentence. You may derive some 
benefit from this consideration. All must admit, 
that Mr. Murray generally evinces superior judg- 
ment and ability in the construction of sentences. 
You have seen a proof in his judicious remarks on 
the previous quotation, and yet when he himself, 
though apparently with great care, attempts a long 
sentence, he exhibits those faults which he can so 
ably expose. 

Since I have occupied so much space with this 
long quotation, it occurs to me that I may make it 
of some use. Mr. Murray should have pointed out 
its defects more particularly, and shewn the pupil 
how he may correct them, and, as he has not done 
this, I shall take the liberty to attempt its improve- 
ment : — 

To this succeeded that licentiousness which entered 
with the Restoration, and, from infecting our religion 
and morals, fell to corrupt our language. This last 



IN COMPOSITION. 



43 



was not likely to be much improved by those who, at 
that time, made up the court of King Charles the 
Second — either such as had followed him in his banish- 
ment, or who had been altogether conversant in the 
dialect of those times, or young men who had been 
educated in the same country. The court, thus, which 
used to be the standard of correctness and propriety of 
speech, was then, has I think ever since continued, 
and will remain, the worst school in England for that 
accomplishment, till better care be taken in the educa- 
tion of our nobility, that they may set out into the 
world with some foundations of literature, in order to 
qualify them for patterns of politeness. 

Compare this diligently with the original, and 
note the important change that has been effected, by 
such trifling alterations as could hardly displease 
Swift himself. It now reads smooth, easy and 
pleasing, and is no longer " a loose dissertation 
upon several subjects." Let such exercises as this 
be your constant study. Whenever you meet a 
long-winded sentence, take a pen and try to improve 
it on this plan, and you will be surprised at the 
rapid melioration in your own style. Again, and 
again I say, that nothing can help you so certainly 
to respectable composition, and you can find abun- 
dant examples for correction. 



Having now conducted you safely through the 
dangers of circumlocution and tediousness, I may 
venture to tell you what I was unwilling even to 
hint at before — that all very protracted sentences, 
where there is no detail, are not necessarily long- 



41 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

winded. They cannot be so, if you read on with 
ease and pleasure, and find no demand upon your 
memory or attention, for keeping distant or ques- 
tionable connections in view. Where the subject 
is suited to your comprehension, if you understand 
readily as you proceed, there cannot be long-winded- 
ness, though your author may not choose to make 
divisions or periods. Of this, the most illustrious 
example that I have found is BufFon, who has, 
sometimes, longer sentences than I have encountered 
in our ancient English writers, who seem to be 
fascinated with a prolixity of development, and for 
which the French were never so remarkable. In 
his " Rules for the art of writing," I find one 
sentence of 147 words, and another of no fewer than 
167 ! This last, I must own, is somewhat, though 
not altogether, in the nature of detail, but the 
other is not of that character, and yet it reads with 
a smoothness so delightful, and so full of charms, 
that one cannot think it could be improved by smaller 
divisions. I never saw any thing among our own 
authors to equal it, because when we approach such 
length, the sense is disagreeably forced upon us by 
means of colons, which plainly indicate a strange 
and unnatural connection, as if the writer felt that 
his reader was beginning to think disjunction neces- 
sary. BufFon's sentence of 167 words is, through 
all its parts, strongly and unexceptionably sustained 
by simple commas, and two semicolons only — a 
similar instance might, in vain, be sought through 
all the books in the English language. 



IN COMPOSITION. 45 

Our lengthy sentences, when not long-winded, 
are generally two or more brought, without any 
perceivable necessity or advantage, into one period, 
and we may, therefore, safely recommend the learner 
to exercise himself, in separating them into their 
more natural and pleasing divisions. Many instances 
of this kind may be found in Locke. He was too 
clearheaded to be drawling, but colons being much 
used in his day, he often introduces them where the 
sense is complete, and when the following matter 
should go to a new sentence. 

I was about to conclude, when I saw Bufrbn's 
description of the dog, and there I find a sentence 
of 216 words ! Without the aid of a larger type 
than we see frequently used, it would fill an octavo 
page, yet there is but one colon, and that comes in 
so adroitly, as not to entirely justify the propriety 
of a new sentence. The whole is so finely managed 
— the qualities of the dog are described in such a 
skilfully consecutive order, that any break would 
seem to be a fault, and, instead of being tired or 
offended by such a tyrannical draught on his undi- 
vided attention, the reader only regrets that he 
comes so soon to the conclusion. 

From these considerations, you see the necessity 
of some discrimination in the reduction of long 
sentences, which is, certainly, an excellent exercise 
for composition. Examine first whether they be 
long-winded or not, and, if they are, make the 
divisions without any concern about the author's 
phraseology or language. With that you have 



46 FIRST CAUSE OF FAILURE 

nothing to do — your business is only to make the 
necessary separations, with the least possible trans- 
position or omission of the original words, or intro- 
duction of new ones. Even where there are faults 
in expression, unless they cause nonsensical disjunc- 
tion, you must not correct them, for that belongs to 
another kind of exercise. You may point them out 
in subsequent remarks, to shew that they did not 
escape your notice, but you must, at present, confine 
yourself steadily to your object— to make the whole 
read smooth by easy and natural subdivisions, so as 
to rectify your author's crude notions of long-winded 
connections. 

Encouragement is like hope — the stay and prop 
of exertion, and since so much has been said of 
BufFon, it may be satisfactory to mention, that he 
composed with great pain and difficulty. It appears 
that he frequently corrected every thing that he 
wrote, before going to press — sometimes as often as 
twenty times over I Were it not for this fact being 
well known, we should have our commentators on 
style expatiating, in terms of admiration, on the 
natural ease and flow of his thoughts, but you can 
turn it to a more useful account — to support and 
cheer you in your humble efforts, as you see that 
nearly the most remarkable success in composition 
with which we are acquainted was not, altogether, 
effected by superior genius. 



IN COMPOSITION. 47 



CHAPTER THIRD. 



Second Cause of Failure in Composition. 

The fear of repeating a word destroys all chance 
of good writing. It is much better to use the same 
words a hundred times, than to leave the sense 
weak or doubtful. While I admit that a pleasing 
variety shews a well-informed mind, and is very at- 
tractive, it must be recollected, that plainness is 
never disagreeable, and that sense should never be 
sacrificed at the shrine of ornament. 

Those to whom my pages are addressed have all 
got hold of this false notion, and its effects are 
accordingly seen when they attempt to write. I 
have known one of those persons, when on the sub- 
ject of a house, sooner than repeat the word too 
often, to call it a residence, a dwelling, a habitation, 
and at last a mansion, although it contained only 
four rooms ! Thus they make themselves ridicu- 
lous, they mar their own intentions of clearness, 
and they are sure to be either pitied or despised by 
men of penetration and judgment. 

But, although this is bad enough, it is not in 
substantives only, or in the more important words, 
that this dread of repetition is evinced. It extends 
to conjunctions, pronouns and other words, that are 
necessary for connection, perspicuity and correct- 
ness. The poor writer has a great horror of that, 



48 SECOND CAUSE OF FAILURE 

he, I, you, it, she, they, and he scrupulously avoids 
them as destructive to beauty or elegance. He 
says, "I am happy to hear you are well, and am 
rejoiced you will be soon coming to London." It 
would shock him to write, I am happy to hear that 
you are well, and / am rejoiced that you will be 
soon coming to London. He begins his advertise- 
ment, " John James informs his friends he has 
laid in his winter assortment, and hopes he will ex- 
perience" . Mr. James would as soon say, that 

his goods were bad, as to inform his friends that he 
has laid in his winter assortment, and he hopes that 

he will experience . Yet the introduction of 

those words in italics, would shew the writer to be 
above the common class, and I cannot too particu- 
larly insist upon great attention to this point. 

One of my acquaintances, who feared that as if 
it were a ghost, had occasion to address a great 
man. He shewed me the draught, observing that 
he thought the commencement would do very well, 
but that other parts required amendment. It be- 
gan, u I hope A you will pardon the liberty A I take 
in stating A I cannot possibly accede to the terms A 
Mr. Vendall your agent has proposed for renewing 
my lease A expired last month." " There," said he, 
before I had time to make a remark, " is a sentence 
without a single that or which, and no necessity for 
any stop, but I am afraid you will not find the rest 
so good." I much damped his joy— indeed he ap- 
peared disgusted, when I told him, that there were 
five thats strictly required where I marked a caret, 






IN COMPOSITION. 49 

but that I would dispense altogether with the first, 
and allow which after terms. " There would still 
be three thats" said he. Yes, said I, and you must 
also put at least two commas — one after stating, 
and another after proposed. He smiled at my pla- 
titude, and punningly remarked, that the terms 
which I demanded were as unreasonable as Mr. 
Vendall's. 

Divest yourself, I say again, of such most 
erroneous notions. Though you may never hope to 
arrive at any thing beyond mediocrity, try at least 
to write with firmness, for that is expected. I shall 
now give a sample of that manner, for it can hardly 
be called a style, in which you find advertisements 
drawn up by those who think that they know the 
beauties of composition : — 

Henry Jack, merchant-tailor, having again resumed 
business, and taken the house, No. 6, Daw-street, begs 
to state lie is extensively supplied with the most 
beautiful sky-blue Cerulino for waistcoating, now so 
fashionable, and is determined no other shall undersell 
him in this article, or any in his line. With respect 
to coat-making, he hopes the fame he has acquired in 
such important branch, will secure him the distin- 
guished patronage he has been so remarkable for, since 
his first commencing. 

Any person of information, on reading this ad- 
vertisement, would immediately see, that it was 
written by a man of the humblest literary capacity. 
There are even some who might connect it, preju- 
dicially, with his ability concerning work, and it is 

D 



50 SECOND CAUSE OF FAILURE 

of consequence to prevent such conclusions from 
being drawn. In truth, the advertisement is a fine 
specimen of what we call fustian, or a kind of bom- 
bastic style — an attempt at neatness and strength, 
while it is only a pitiable exhibition of clumsiness 
and debility. Bad as it is, it might, however, be 
worse. The meaning is perfectly intelligible all 
through, and, in the following corrected form, it will 
be seen that I have done little more than to put in 
the words that are obviously necessary : — 

Henry Jack, merchant-tailor, having again resumed 
business, and having taken the house, No. 6, Daw- 
street, begs to state, that he is extensively supplied 
with most beautiful sky-blue Cerulino for waistcoating, 
which is now so fashionable, and he is determined that 
no other house shall undersell him in this, or any other 
article in his line. With respect to coat making, he 
hopes, that the fame which he has acquired in that 
important branch, will secure to him the distinguished 
patronage that he has been so remarkable for, since his 
commencement in business. 

Though Mr. Jack might, possibly, admit the pro- 
priety of the small words that are introduced, he 
w r ould, no doubt, be shocked at the repetition of 
house, and business, and particularly at the second 
other coming so dangerously near the first. This 
last might certainly be omitted, and I only inserted 
it, because the construction cannot be called mean, 
and because I wish to shew, that we should not 
hesitate about such frivolities when we may give 
additional weight to a sentence. 

But we must not run into extremes. There is 



IN COMPOSITION. 51 

no occasion, neither is it proper, to say, " I would 
have answered your first letter, but your second let- 
ter renders it unnecessary to answer your first let- 
ter." All the purposes of clearness are secured by 
this turn, u I would have answered your first 
letter, but your second renders that unnecessary." 
Give yourself no trouble, about the possibility 
of the word that being otherwise applied than 
as you mean, for every one will readily compre- 
hend your true intention. It might be substituted 
for that, though the change is not worth considera- 
tion. 

Mr. Lindley Murray, in his remarks on the con- 
struction of sentences, says, 

A long succession of either long or ^hort sentences 
should be avoided ; for the ear tires of either of them 
when too long continued. 

Here are three longs in a very short sentence. This, 
you will, no doubt, consider to be a very poor and 
ungraceful production from such an eminent gram- 
marian, especially when on the subject of compo- 
sition. Yet Mr. Murray was, at the very time, 
treating of " perspicuity and accuracy," and we 
cannot suppose that he wrote carelessly, as he was 
not addressing school-boys, but advanced students. 
No — on the contrary, I am sure that he well knew 
what he penned. Such a master of English could 
easily have avoided the two last repetitions of long, 
but he disdained to give, in himself, an example of 
that puerile fear, against which I have been warning 
you. Take the hint from such authority, and seek 

d 2 



52 SECOND CAUSE OF FAILURE 

not for different words, where strength and clearness 
are, manifestly, in danger. 

However, there is a medium to be preserved. 
Improved language is, indeed, so full of elisions, 
that too much particularity will only produce unne- 
cessary tautology. Grammar, or rather the stiff 
grammarian, requires what I consider a needless 
repetition in some instances as, Give one shilling to 
John, two shillings to Peter and three to James. 
Now I contend that shillings may be omitted with- 
out any violation of correctness. For, after having 
said one, the two means two such or similar ones — 
an expression so convenient that grammarians are 
forced to allow its admissibility. Mr. Walker 
himself says, that " One has sometimes a plural, 
when it stands for persons indefinitely, as the great 
Ones of this w r orld." This is but a poor evasion of 
fact. Every reader knows, that the first w r riters 
apply ones to things as w T ell as to " persons indefi- 
nite,*' and why conceal what has actually become 
grammatical ? I could mention many other re- 
markable elliptical phrases, and some that might 
curiously defend very bad grammar, but this would 
be a dangerous topic for those to whom my book is 
addressed. Liberty in language requires great 
judgment, and perhaps I have even said a little 
more than may be prudent. I shall, however, 
make some other observations on the ellipsis in a 
separate chapter. 



IN COMPOSITION. 53 



CHAPTER FOURTH 



Third Cause of Failure in Composition. 

In the commencement of my work I described 
this, as arising from " your not duly considering the 
previous part of a sentence, which often produces 
ludicrous errors, such as making a horse or a house 
appear to do the business of a man." I thought 
that I should have a great deal to say on this sub- 
ject, but I find that I have anticipated myself in the 
second chapter. For, if you avoid long sentences, 
you will generally steer clear of the absurdities that 
are now to be considered. 

I therefore entreat that you will try to write 
with brevity. Force yourself, by repeated trials, to 
abandon that verbosity which is so disgusting to 
men of sense, and so dangerous to clearness of ex- 
pression. Think first of what you have to relate, 
and then proceed as directed for the parenthetical 
example. I can give you no better advice for 
curing that disgraceful obscurity, and that intolerable 
prolixity, which militates against being clearly 
understood, or sufferable to read. 

The following is an example of the blunders, 
confusion and general incorrectness, that this wordy 
propensity brings forth. I am sorry to say that it 



54 THIRD CAUSE OF FAILURE 

is not overstrained, for I know too many who would 
write a similar occurrence in the same manner: — 

On Thursday two fellows driving a drove of cows to 
Smithfield (though they appeared to be sober, which 
makes their conduct the more criminal) were forced 
against a house in Hain's-lane, and broke the shop- 
window (doing other damage besides) by which one 
was killed from falling on some iron spikes that were 
in front ! They did not however seem to be any way 
concerned about this shameful proceeding, but on the 
contrary abused the owners, who however had them 
brought to the police office, and detained, the cows, 
(having first sent the dead one, in a cart, to Mr. Saleses 
yard adjoining) and they were soon fully and most 
deservedly committed to Newgate for this scandalous 
act. This occurred at ten o'clock in the forenoon on 
the day above mentioned, and the names of the persons 
whose windows were broken, are John Kraubman and 
Co. highly respectable German sausage makers, one of 
whom had like to be killed, when he went out, such 
was the maddened state of those poor animals ! It is 
pleasing however to think that they will suffer, (as 
there can be no doubt but they must,) the just punish- 
ment of their outrageous and unwarrantable offence. 

In this occurrence there are very few incidents, 
and yet what a mass of confusion and incoherency 
it presents ! It is scarcely necessary to examine its 
faults. We are first told, that, although the cows 
were sober, two fellows were forced against a house 
by w T hich one was killed — that they then abused 
the owners of the cows — that those cows were then 
sent to Newgate — that the Kraubmans are poor 
animals — and finally that it is pleasing to think, that 



IN COMPOSITION. 55 

the cows or the Kraubmans, for it is doubtful which, 
will be punished. Why if one who could write 
thus had to tell a story wherein a dozen persons 
figured, together with dogs, cows, horses, and a 
carriage, it would be altogether unintelligible. 

A plain arrangement which will shew the sense 
is, however, not very difficult, if you keep the 
prominent facts in view, as will appear by the fol- 
lowing summary : — 

At ten o'clock on Thursday morning, two fellows 
who were driving cows to Smithfield, forced them 
against the house of Messrs. Kraubman and Co., 
sausage-makers in Ham's-lane, by which the window 
was demolished, and one of the poor auimals killed by 
the iron spikes in front. The ruffians, though appa- 
rently sober, instead of anything like contrition, abused 
Messrs. Kraubman, but they secured and sent them to 
the police-office. Their committal was soon made out, 
and they are now in Newgate. Messrs. Kraubman, 
one of whom, in the first confusion, narrowly escaped 
death, have, for the present, detained the cows — the 
one that was killed being given in charge to Mr. Sale, 
who lives near the spot. 

The following advertisement deserves your con- 
sideration. There you see the blunders that arise 
in sentences, from not properly placing their various 
members. I could give much more faulty examples, 
but this may suffice : — 

I EON-MONGER Y.— Thomas and John Hasp, 26, 
Bolt-street, inform their numerous customers, they have 
taken the large concern No. 10 Screw-street, lately 
occupied by Hammer and Co. for the better extending 



56 THIRD CAUSE OF FAILURE 

their business, and hope they shall] now be able to 
satisfy their utmost expectations, as they will devote 
the former exclusively to the sale of all articles in their 
usual line, and the^ latter, entirely to nail-making, for 
the accommodation of country dealers, which they have 
been so remarkable for these fifteen years past 

Here you see that the advertisers say, that Ham- 
mer and Co. occupied the large concern for the 
better extending their business. They also hope, 
that they shall be able to satisfy Hammer and Co.'s 
utmost expectations, and they conclude by informing 
us, that they have been fifteen years remarkable 
for accommodating country dealers, though they 
mean to say, for nail-making. The following, 
without interfering with the particular phraseology 
of the advertisers, gives the sense of what they 
intend : — 

IRON-MONGEEY.— Thomas and John Hasp, No. 
26 Bolt-street, inform their numerous customers, that, 
for the better extending their business, they have taken 
the large concern, No. 10 Screw-street, lately occupied 
by Hammer and Co. They hope that they shall now 
be able to satisfy the utmost expectations, as they will 
devote the house in Bolt-street, exclusively to the sale 
of all articles in their usual line, and the new Estab- 
lishment, entirely to nail -making. Having been, 
fifteen years, remarkable in that branch, they can now 
give greate? accommodation to country dealers. 

I dismiss this part of my subject rather abruptly, 
because others have treated it copiously, and there 
is no necessity for me to enlarge upon what has 
been, already, well performed. Numerous examples 



IN COMPOSITION. 57 

of misplacing words and members, are collected by 
Mr. Murray and latter grammarians, to whom you 
may refer. In offering an instance or two of a more 
familiar nature, I have done as much as seems to be 
necessary. 

LONDON NEWSPAPERS. 

In concluding this portion of my work, it will 
appear scarcely necessary to apologise for adverting 
to the London Newspapers. To that part of the 
public press, we are much indebted for a rapid im- 
provement in composition, and it were injustice to 
let pass the opportunity of acknowledgment. Since 
the commencement of the present century our style 
has been more chastened, I may indeed say clari- 
fied, through newspaper influence, than by books 
for a hundred previous years. 

The competition for excellence in every respect, 
induced the proprietors to spare no expense in the 
literary departments, and, as the editors felt that 
they themselves became the more important persons 
in public estimation, their exertions were of the 
most ardent and indefatigable nature. They found 
that even some of the humblest in society were 
beginning to be judges of style — that journeymen 
shoe-makers presumed to talk of good and ill -written 
articles. A newspaper was soon noticed for dull, 
prosing commentaries, and hence, the necessity of 
neat and well-turned periods was obvious, for exciting 
interest and ensuring perusal. 

This is not attributing more than is due to the 

D 3 



58 THIRD CAUSE OF FAILURE 

newspapers. No author, however clever or prac- 
tised, ever wrote a book without wishing some 
alteration after publication — indeed the very extent 
alone of almost any work, nearly precludes the 
possibility of satisfactory completion. But the 
newspaper editor has peculiar advantages. His 
articles are short, and, being in daily practice of 
seeing them in print, he learns to avoid all those 
things that prevent them from " reading smooth." 
Thus, although they may not always display a 
vigorous understanding, or a Johnsonian " grasp of 
mind," they are, generally, in point of composition, 
very respectable specimens. The reporters have 
caught the spirit, and, down to the collectors of fires 
and ordinary occurrences, a perspicuity of narration 
has become indispensable — none can now expect 
employment, whose writing requires constant edi- 
torial correction. 

In confining .these remarks to the metropolitan 
press, I mean no disparagement of our papers else- 
where. But, if many of them now equal those of 
London, we should not forget, that it first set the 
example, and excited that spirit of emulation, the 
literary effect of which is, more or less, felt in every 
part of the empire. 

I might also observe, though it more appropriately 
belongs to another part of this work, that punctuation 
is much indebted to the newspapers. In books, the 
authors have a control that is, too often, more pre- 
judicial than serviceable, but, in the public journal, 
there are none of those checks to improvement — 



IN COMPOSITION. 59 

the favors of correspondents are altered as propriety 
requires. Accordingly we find that, since the Lon- 
don newspapers aimed at high respectability, a 
greater reformation of pointing was effected, in ten 
years, than we could otherwise expect for a century 
to come. They first threw out the constant semi- 
colon, introduced the dash judiciously, and, by the 
frequent comma, they may be said to have invented 
that most valuable of all improvements in punctua- 
tion, high pointing. 



CHAPTER FIFTH. 



Paragraphs. 

Every thing that is included in separate divisions 
constitutes a paragraph. In the commencement of 
the first chapter, from I to title is one, from My to 
expense is another, and so on. What particularly 
marks a paragraph is, the first line being indented 
or begun more to the right hand, by which it is 
somewhat shorter than the usual measure. But a 
separated quotation or example is only a part of the 
paragraph by which it is explained or introduced. 

Paragraphs should never be extended to a great 
length. If very long, they will run the risk of not 
being read attentively. They make us impatient to 
go to the next, and, if there be a succession of such 



60 PARAGRAPHS. 

protracted stages, we get tired and begin to think of 
repose. The eye must be pleased as well as the 
mind. The end of every paragraph is a certain re- 
lief to thought or attention— the commencement of 
the next is a new prospect for the sight, and if each 
be not somewhat gratified, desire will abate, and we 
shall feel inclined to halt on our journey. But it is 
not easy to fix a standard for the size of paragraphs, 
for they are affected by that of the book. What 
may appear long in this work would, in a quarto, seem 
even displeasingly short. I may recommend how- 
ever that they be diversified into long and short, for 
a monotonous sameness is displeasing here, as w r ell 
as in other matters. Were I to give any thing like 
a general direction as to length I would say, that 
they should seldom contain less than sixty w r ords, 
and not exceed five hundred. In newspapers, they 
often run to extraordinary length, but where columns 
are above a foot and a half long, and space an object, 
we cannot expect attention to such matters. 

Some authors are fond of the shortest paragraphs 
possible, and will continue them, all through, with 
only from thirty to fifty words in each. I cau- 
tion you to beware of this. Such writing assumes 
too aphoristical an appearance — it is like a list of 
maxims or apophthegms. Finding a difficulty of con- 
nection, we read carelessly, and, seeing no necessity 
for this starched formality, we are offended by such 
an uncalled-for dictatorial pomposity. There is an 
appearance of too much self-confidence and opinion, 
as if the author thought that every line should be 



STYLE. 



61 



got by heart, but he only forces us to recollect, that 
every writer is not a Bacon. To arrogate, upon or- 
dinary occasions, a didactic or preceptive tone, is 
nothing less than ridiculous. Montesquieu, in his 
Espiit des Lois, has a chapter containing only four 
lines, but such a sententious and profound writer could, 
with propriety, do what would be ridiculous in 
others. 



CHAPTER SIXTH. 



Style. 

Than style, few subjects have been more extensively 
discussed, and yet hardly any with so little effect. 
Men of learning and judgment, from Cicero and 
Quintilian down to the present day, have written 
largely upon it, but those who looked for real in- 
struction never reaped much from their labors. For 
this remarkable failure of purpose there must be a 
cause, and its examination will be the chief object of 
this chapter. 

Dr. Irvine's treatise ought to be, and is, I believe, 
the best, because he expressly desires that it should 
be considered as a compilation from the works of 
others. His words are, " I desire to be regarded 
in no other light than that of a mere compiler. " He 
has laboriously brought together, and very inge- 
niously, and I will add, judiciously, connected, every 
thing worth recording in his numerous predecessors, 



62 STYLE. 

whether ancient or modern, and I think that I may, 
therefore, very fairly confine myself to his book. 
Nor can it be any offence to that gentleman if, to 
save trouble, I speak of him as the author, for, by 
selecting the opinions of others that are conformable 
to his own, he places himself, at least as to respon- 
sibility, in the situation of an original writer. Now 
I find, in this book, twelve kinds of style copiously 
treated, under the following heads, to which I have 
affixed the authors quoted as examples : — 

Concise. Aristotle, Tacitus, Monteso^ieu, Locke, 
Clarke, Reid. 

Diffuse. Plato, Cicero, Temple, Addison, Burke. 

Nervous. Bacon, Raleigh, Hooker, Milton, Ga- 
taker, Johnson, Ferguson, Stuart, Robertson, Gib- 
bon. 

Feeble. Spence. 

Vehement. Bolingbroke, Burke. 

Plain. Swift. 

Dry or Harsh. Aristotle. 

Neat. Middleton, Berkeley, Blackstone, Smith. 

Graceful. Cowley, Dryden, Addison, Pope, 
Atterbury, Melmoth, Hume, Beattie. 

Florid. Hervey, Dyer, Johnson's Rasselas, 
Hawkesworth's Almoran and Harriet, Langhorne's 
Solyman and Almena, and the tales in the Spectator, 
Rambler and Adventurer, 

Simple. Homer, Hesiod, Anacreon, Theocritus, 
Herodotus, Xenophon, Terence, Lucretius, Caesar, 
Jortin, Tillotson, Temple, Addison, Goldsmith, Fox. 

Affected. Shaftesbury, Black well. 



STYLE. 63 

There are also others occasionally noticed, as the 
loose, precise, pompous, musical, polite, familial*, 
poetical, easy, epistolary, oratorical, flowing-, pe- 
riodique, and coupe — say, in round numbers, about 
two dozen, though I may remark, that Doctor John- 
son would seem to recognize but four, if we may 
judge from a passage in his Life of Dryden, " All 
polished languages have different styles ; the con- 
cise, the diffuse, the lofty, and the humble." 

Give those examples, without names or designa- 
tions, to another equally competent judge as Doctor 
Irvine, and see if he will classify the styles similarly. 
We may be pretty sure that he would not, because 
there is nothing like a fixed guide to decision. It 
is, like beauty, a matter of taste or opinion, and can- 
not, therefore, be of any great utility as to instruction. 
But, supposing that it were fixable, and that each 
style could be demonstrated with unerring precision, 
what could it do for him who is aiming at such 
modes of writing ? Nothing. He asks for plain 
rules, and is literally laughed at for his folly. 
" Then," says he, " I must imitate those great mo- 
dels." " No," says his instructor, '• for imitation 
has never yet formed a good writer, poet, musician, 
or actor." Why, Sancho Panza w r as better off un- 
der the whimsical Doctor Snatchaway, for he got 
something to chew at last, after much temporary 
privation. 

It is admitted, however, that good instructions 
may do much, and this is true to a certain extent. 
But they must be something of a mechanical nature 



64 STYLE. 

— something, as it were, tangible, and of which we 
can lay hold. Mere specimens and commentaries 
will avail but little to the learner, whether he be 
young, or of mature years. He reads—admires the 
profundity of the observations, but nothing remains 
on his mind. To him, the list of grammatical errors 
or of weak points, in the construction of sentences, 
that accompany books like that of Doctor Irvine, is 
of more service than all the essays upon style that 
ever were written. The catalogue of vulgarisms 
may also be useful, but it is worth remarking, 
that many of the examples are from Addison, Pope, 
Smith, Aikin, Johnson, Melmoth, Kame, Blair, 
and Lowth, whose styles are generally christened 
Graceful, Neat, Nervous, and other endearing appel- 
lations. 

The cause of this striking uselessness of all those 
treatises on style, cannot, as we have seen, arise 
from men of erudition and judgment leaving the 
subject in feeble hands. It has been discussed by 
those who, in their own writings, have given impo- 
sing proofs of being qualified for the undertaking. 
Amongst the moderns, who ever excelled — I might 
almost say, who ever equalled, the fascinating Buf- 
fon, whose style appears, like the Belvidere Apollo, 
to be the very beau ideal of excellence ? The mean- 
est subject leaves his hands invested with new at- 
tractions, and dressed either magnificently, or with 
an elegant simplicity that rivets attention. Whether 
he describe the noble horse, the sanguinary tiger, 
the insignificant and timid mouse, or the contemptible 



STYLE. 65 

worm that seems designed only for the food of birds, 
his magical pen maintains an equable power of ex- 
citing interest. He is, undoubtedly, at the head of 
a few who can force us to read, and this, whatever 
may be said of gracefulness, vehemence, vigor, or 
other assumed requisites, must be considered as 
nearly the perfection of writing. 

It might be said, with great justice, to be a loss 
to the literary world, if such a man did not write 
upon style. Fortunately, however, he did not leave 
us in this lamentable condition — he did write upon 
style, and a finer specimen of the unintelligible ex- 
planatory was never produced. Though he calls it 
Regies de Vart oVecrire, or rules for the art of writing, 
I may safely assert, that if one had it off by heart 
it could afford no assistance whatever in the way of 
instruction — those who are laboring to acquire a 
good style would be just as well off if Buffon had 
locked the essay in his breast. An old woman, on 
hearing it read through, would probably say, (i 'Tis 
very true indeed, and he must be a great man, for 
he has clearly proved, that if one knows how to 
write well, one won't write badly." However, it 
procured Buffon admission to academical honors, and 
that was something for himself. I wish I could 
give it in full for the gratification of my readers, but 
it would occupy a dozen of my pages, and that 
might be considered as an inexcusable sacrifice for 
mere amusement. I feel, however, that I should 
not have it, thus, all to myself. There are many 
who cannot consult the essay, and they may not be 



66 STYLE. 

altogether contented with my strictures. I there- 
fore present an extract, and, for the satisfaction of 
those who know French, I give it in the original : — 

Le style n'est que l'ordre et le mouvement qu*on met 
dans ses pensees ; si on les enchaine etroitement, si on 
les serre, le style devient ferme, nerveux et coneis ; si 
on les laisse se suceeder lentement, et ne se joindre qu* 
a la faveur des mots, quelqu* elegans qu'ils soient, le 
style sera diffus, lache et trainant. 

Translation. — Style is but the order'and the motion 
that we put into our thoughts ; if we bind them closely, 
if we press them together, the style becomes firm, 
nervous, and concise ; if left to follow each other 
slowly, and only to unite by means of words, however 
elegant (they may be), the style will be diffuse, loose, 
and drawling. 

This, I believe, is enough. No one who wishes 
to be taught, will desire any further extract, for 
this must shew, that the remainder is in the same 
clear-obscure, and valuably instructive strain, that 
distinguishes all our dissertations upon style. Buf- 
fon's essay may be said to comprise the substance, 
if any there be, of all that has been written on this 
subject. However, I do not wish to oppose such 
considerations. What offends me is, that they are 
offered to us as regular modes of instruction. Had 
Buffon entitled his discourse or essa}^ Thoughts 
upon Style, no one could find fault, but, when he 
gives it as " Rules," every man of sense must laugh 
at the foolish pretensions of the teacher. What a 
pity it is, that Doctor Johnson did not think it 




STYLE. 67 

worth while to attack those stylish pedagogues ! 
Half a page from such a pen as he wielded would 
have sufficed to sweep the whole tribe away. He 
would have exposed their Aristotelian sophistry as 
forcibly as he shewed the nothingness of Pope's 
Essay on Man, which fell irrecoverably , as soon as 
the criticism appeared, and it has, ever since, been 
properly estimated as only a fine piece of poetry, 
wherein u penury of knowledge and vulgarity of 
sentiment are so happily disguised, that the reader 
feels his mind full though he learns nothing " 

For purposes that will appear obvious, I have 
sometimes conversed with good classical scholars, 
who, to my own knowledge, read in the original 
and much admired, Cicero, Quintilian and Longi- 
nus. After eliciting the most elaborate praise of 
those authors, for their profound judgment in 
treating the art of writing, I have requested to know 
what were the most striking or useful parts of the 
works, which so much excited their admiration, but 
I could never extract any thing worth remembering. 
I then compelled them to admit that, as far as re- 
spected assistance in style, they had gained no 
advantage , nor found any rule upon which they 
could decisively act — that their heads, not their 
minds, were filled with what they thought was 
something material, but which the test of remem- 
brance proved to be no more solid than salt or sugar 
that melts away in plain water. Some of those 
scholars wrote in a very labored, ungraceful, and 
even long-winded, style — the only benefit that they 



68 STYLE. 

derived from their learning was, that they avoided 
grammatical errors, but for this they were not 
indebted either to Cicero or Quintilian. 

But, if such eminent names effected so little, 
why should I write on style, who am only as dust 
in the balance, compared with them ? Though I 
might offer a good defence by referring to the 
introductory paragraph of this chapter, I may answer 
more decisively, and yet still admit my inferiority. 
In the first place, it is well known that the best 
performers are not always the best teachers, and, 
in the next, that splendid talents often lead the 
possessors either to contempt or to ignorance of the 
meaner elements of a science. Hence, it arises 
that, when attempting instruction, impatient of 
rising into the airy expansion of sublimities, they 
pay but little attention to the mere mechanical 
rudiments — they disdain to stay with humble work- 
ing mortals, and away they soar into the clouds. 
Now I may be of more instructive utility for this 
reason, that, having but a very limited genius, I 
must remain on earth. If I attempt to rise, it can 
only be a flutter, and I am warned to come down 
immediately. 

There must be some cause for all this unintel- 
ligibility and uselessness, and it strikes me that it 
is for want of applying that great intellectual lever, 
Induction. By this simple, though gigantic power, 
Bacon overthrew, at once, the mountain of peripa- 
tetic subtilties which mankind was foolishly at- 
tempting, for two thousand years, to climb. It is 



STYLE. 69 

a pity that his grand system, or rather its appli- 
cation 9 should be so little known. The general 
opinion is, that it is only of use in philosophy, 
metaphysics, or the higher branches of the more 
abstruse sciences, but this is a delusion which, I fear, 
there are men who have an interest in keeping up. 
The best explanation that I have seen is in that 
valuable work, w r hich so well supports its title, The 
Library of useful and entertaining Knowledge. In 
the article on Bacon's Organon, which is suited 
to general comprehension, Induction is thus ex- 
plained : — 

Bacon proposes the advancement of all kinds of 
knowledge by induction, i. e. a bringing-in ; for the 
plan it unfolds is that of investigating nature, and 
inquiring after truth, not by reasoning upon mere con- 
jectures about nature's laws and properties, as philoso- 
phers had been too much accustomed to do before, but 
by bringing together, carefully, and patiently, a variety 
of particular facts and instances ; viewing these in all 
possible lights ; and drawing, from a comparison of the 
whole, some general principle or truth that applies to 
all. The foundation of this philosophy lies, in short, 
in the history of nature itself— -in making a laborious 
collection of facts relating to any one subject of inquiry, 
previous to any attempt at forming a system or theory. 

Here we see it fairly stated, as being applicable 
to all kinds of knowledge — any subject of inquiry. 
Indeed we naturally apply it to such things as are 
simple, but where a difficulty of solution appears, 
we are too apt to go to the top branches at once, 
and these being, of themselves, unable to bear the 



70 STYLE. 

weight of plain inquiry, we lose ourselves in vague 
and impertinent conjectures, Now I take some 
merit to myself, for having, as I humbly conceive, 
laid the base of a rational system for instruction in 
composition. No doubt that others have written a 
good deal on perspicuity, and some have also con- 
demned the parenthesis, but I am the first who 
plainly shewed, that long-winded sentences are the 
grand obstacle to respectable, or even what we may 
call decent, writing, and that they are the offspring 
of parentheses. I only pretend, however, to have 
drawn a rough outline of the first principles of 
composition— it will.no doubt, be hereafter much im- 
proved, and more methodically arranged, by persons 
better qualified for the task. But, by following the 
inductive process, I discovered, that the punctuation 
of the parts or members of sentences can be accom- 
plished, with propriety and effect, by the comma 
and dash only. This I may boldly call a discovery, 
because it is completely my own, and because this 
book is, in itself, a proof of my assertion. But as 
this will be treated elsewhere, we may now dismiss 
it, and pursue our immediate subject. 

Style either can, or cannot, be plainly defined. 
If it can, the thing has not yet been done, and, if 
it cannot, the various dissertations upon it tend to 
no utility, as they must all be mere gratuitous asser- 
tions that no one is bound to believe. But when 
offered as media of instruction, they are worse than 
useless, because time is, or ought to be, valuable 
to every one, and it is too bad to seduce us to throw 



STYLE. 71 

that away, and also our money. What does it 
signify for a man to shew his reading or acumen by 
giving passages from different authors, and then 
saying that one is neat, another florid, a third diffuse, 
and so on ? What would be thought of any one 
who should, by only giving specimens of correctly 
composed sentences, pretend to teach grammar? 
Yet all that has been said upon style is not less 
preposterous. The pupil writes something, which 
his master says is ungrammatical — he asks why, and 
is referred to his grammar, by which he discovers 
his errors, but in respect to style how is he situated ? 
If a question on this point arise, he is only supported 
or contradicted by the opinion of a self-created 
judge, who decides neither from law nor equity. It 
reminds one of that jocular rebuke to a patient, who 
says he is not as well as the physician pronounced 
him, What, Sir ! do you to pretend to know better 
than the doctor ? 

Though I think very little about any speculation 
for teaching different kinds of style, I feel myself 
called upon to lend my assistance towards checking 
that system of delusion, which has so successfully 
imposed upon our understandings for eighteen hun- 
dred years. Now if any one pretend to instruct us 
in various styles, let him furnish plain proofs that he 
understands what he professes to teach. This must, 
surely, be considered a very fair proposition. The 
test that I propose is simple enough. Let him give 
a passage, suppose in the plain or perspicuous man- 
ner, and then put it into all the different styles 



72 STYLE. 

upon which he expatiates with so much ardour. I 
say that if he cannot do this, he should not set up 
for an instructor. But he will then allege, that 
this would put down criticism, which we all admit 
to be necessary for the advancement of literature. 
I hardly think that such a silly argument could 
make any impression upon discriminating minds. 
Criticism is quite different from what is now under 
consideration, and all critical strictures, whether 
they appear in newspapers or in books, contribute 
to improve our taste, to enlarge our views, and to 
regulate our judgment. 

I am inclined to think, that I come in a favorable 
time with this discussion on style. The public 
mind seems to be in a proper state for throwing off 
the fetters of mysticism in every thing, and requiring 
intelligible directions, instead of the solemn, but 
unmeaning, jargon that so long held our judgment 
captive. We see it in every particular, whether in 
politics, in literature, or in private concerns, and 
we see it, in the most forcible manner, on the 
stage. The ghost of Hamlet, that used to make 
men afraid to go to bed in the dark, is now laughed 
at by the very children. Some have lamented the 
evident decline of tragedy, for the last quarter of a 
century, as a proof of declension in good taste, but 
many persons take it in an opposite view. Most 
tragedies elevate or debase men beyond probability 
— they seem too like the fairy tales, which have 
almost ceased to amuse even the simple country 
swain. Comedy and farce, therefore, appear to be 



STYLE. 73 

pushing ideal tragedy " from its stool," because, 
there, we see life as it is, or at least as it may be. 
Even musical operas are preferred to tragedies, 
though it is not less ridiculous to sing out the 
common occurrences of life than for a hero, who is 
writhing in the agonies of death from a painful 
wound, to take his last farewell of this wicked world 
in good set poetry. 

As my view of style is somewhat new, it is 
necessary for me to take care, that I be not misre- 
presented or misunderstood. I may expect certain 
persons to say, that I am, either so pertinaciously 
wrapped up in my plainness, or so incapable of any 
thing higher, that I would, if I had the power, 
quaker-like, make the whole world a single-breasted, 
grey-coated creation. Gentlemen, do not thus de- 
ceive yourselves or others. I am equally anxious 
as you for elegance and inprovement, but I depre- 
cate the custom of publishing expensive books on 
style, and giving as instructive, what is only an 
ostentatious display of reading, speculation and 
opinion. If I could, I would write in a more 
attractive and polished style, because I know that 
it must give increased weight and importance to my 
work, but though, through poverty of talent, I 
cannot dress my thoughts in finery, that is no 
reason why I should not admire beauty and orna- 
ment. Do not imagine that I could not, like others, 
expatiate on elegant composition in rapturous, though 
homely terms, and lose myself in admiration of the 
majestic simplicity of the scriptures, the sublimity 

E 



74 STYLE. 

of a Milton, the colossal weight of a Johnson, or 
the luxuriancy of a Moore. But this is not strictly 
fair when asking the public to pay for " instructions." 
Again I direct your attention to the test that I 
have proposed. If you set up to teach a dozen or 
two of styles, prove that you understand them, by 
exhibiting the substance of even but one passage in 
them all severally, as musicians transpose the same 
air into twelve different keys of the major or minor 
modes. I offer the following, for your greater 
convenience : — 

Socrates has received perhaps the highest praise ever 
awarded to frail man. A heathen — he has been pro- 
nounced the " first Christian," though he died many 
centuries before Christianity was known ! while 
modern history has not hesitated to declare him, " the 
greatest mere man that ever existed I" Such is the 
effect of stern virtue and inflexible rectitude. 

Now, Gentlemen, call this if you please, as a 
starting point, the Concise. Then give it to us in the 
Diffuse, then in the Nervous, then in the Feeble, the 
Vehement, and pray do not forget the neat, and 
so on through all the various grades, upon which 
you so particularly insist, and upon which you write 
so much and so sagaciously. The challenge is per- 
fectly fair. If you decline it, your " occupation is 
gone," and you must give up the business of style- 
master. 

The only way to arrive at any useful or intelligible 
definition of style, with a view to teaching, or to 
positive instruction, is by " collecting facts and 



STYLE. 75 

instances," and after much reflection, and I may say, 
laborious investigation, my belief is, that there are 
but two kinds upon which we can work with cer- 
tainty — the long-winded, and the perspicuous. As 
for the first, every one knows and comprehends it 
well, and there are more practical proofs of it than 
we can desire. It may truly be called the^rs^ — ■ 
indeed it is almost the natural, or at least, the com- 
mon, style, for all inexperienced or uninformed 
writers, and many who know grammar too, and 
whom we account good scholars, are prone to drawl- 
ing. None, except the few who are highly gifted, 
commence by writing pithy or well-proportioned 
sentences, however they may speak in a terse or 
concise manner, and as this is a tangible part of 
the subject, and capable of clear explanation, it 
should be the nucleus of any system of instruction. 
Perspicuity CAN be taught. Any master who know r s 
his business can correct long-windedness as regu- 
larly as grammatical errors. In this, there is nothing 
mysterious or abstruse — nothing that calls for those 
metaphysical descriptions, that we must only con- 
ceive but not touch. The thing is quite mechanical, 
and may be taught to any boy or man of tolerable 
capacity. 

The business then should be, simply, to teach 

PERSPICUITY BY CORRECTING EONG-WINDEDNESS. 

After that, if the pupil have the bent or talent, 
nothing can prevent him from getting into the 
graceful, the florid, the vehement, the nervous, or 
any other style to which his genius inclines. But 

e 2 



76 STYLE. 

if it be maintained, and observe that I do not wish 
to dispute the possibility, that various styles can be 
taught or acquired by instruction, it is indispens- 
able that they, who proffer tuition, should be able 
to meet the test that I have already proposed. They 
will find, by careful induction, that there is no other 
earthly plan for accomplishing the purpose, and, if 
they be not incorrigible devotees, they will also dis- 
cover the important, though to them disagreeable, 
fact, that the public mind is now prepared to scout 
the grave delusions of literary astrology. 



It may be satisfactory to explain, why I have 
selected the word long -winded, which is, certainly, 
not the most elegant. Writers on style call it the 
diffuse, but, as this does not exactly convey my 
meaning, I rather choose to leave it to themselves. 
One may be diffuse without being long-winded. We 
may be excessively tedious and insipid — we may 
introduce a number of perfectly unnecessary ex- 
ceptions and impertinent remarks, and yet all this 
in well-proportioned and pleasing sentences. But 
your long-winded gentleman cannot come to a 
close, in a reasonable time, on any occasion. He 
must bring in his ifs, and ands, and buts, and 
thoughs, and whiches, and notwiths landings, until 
he compels us to do the very reverse of what he 
wishes — to throw away his writing. 

It is, in fact, the first principle of composition, 
rather than any kind of style, that I would inculcate, 



PUNCTUATION. 77 

and which I should wish to be inferred and under- 
stood. For this reason I prefer perspicuous to the 
concise, which our commentators on style oppose to 
the diffuse. Conciseness is too much to expect 
from ordinary pens. To unfold our thoughts with 
ease, and to exhibit them without redundancy of 
expression, is only for the gifted few. A Tacitus or 
a Montesquieu cannot be looked for every day, but 
what I call perspicuity is now expected from every 
one, no matter how poor the language. Whatever 
might be done in folio-volume times, we will not, 
in the present day, labor to find out meaning. 
If we do not readily understand, we will not grope 
our way to sense, unless where our interest is very 
materially concerned. 



CHAPTER SEVENTH. 



Punctuation. 

The separation of sentences into convenient por- 
tions for emphasis and pausing, is called punc- 
tuation, or pointing. This is effected by seven stops 
or points, which you will find after their names, 
thus : — 

Comma , Semi-colon ; Colon : Dash — Period . 
Note of interrogation ? Note of admiration ! 

COMMA. 

Of these the comma, being oftener introduced 

e 3 



78 PUNCTUATION. 

than any other, is the first in importance. Besides, 
its use is more easily learned, and less judgment 
is required in assigning its proper place. We may 
generally put it, whenever we think that there is 
an ordinary rest before the conclusion of a sentence. 
There is, indeed, some difficulty in what is called 
high pointing, of which the following is a speci- 
men : — 

Now, though this may, and too often can, be, and is 
still, considered, by many persons, as a direct infringe- 
ment, yet, seeing that, under all the circumstances, 
men will, in despite of law, run those risks, we cannot, 
here, take it into serious account. 

In this very highly pointed sentence there are six- 
teen commas, which, without any palpable impro- 
priety, may be thus reduced to four : — 

Now though this may and too often can be, and is 
still considered by many persons as a direct infringe- 
ment, yet seeing that under all the circumstances, men 
will in despite of law run those risks, we cannot here 
take it into serious account. 

High pointing, when not carried too far, is very 
expressive, and it much assists a reader. It is, com- 
paratively, only of recent date, and is, I think, a 
considerable improvement, as it relieves us from the 
frequent semi-colons so embarrassing to inexperienced 
punctuators. But it must not be used at random. 
You must always observe that it have an easy and 
natural union — though you separate the parts, their 
connections must be kept in view. This can be 
made plainer by an example. Seeing a comma mostly 



PUNCTUATION. 79 

after but, especially when beginning a sentence, 
you are led to place it there on all occasions, and you 
thus commit unpardonable breaches of propriety. 

But, not being able to procure a horse, he was 
obliged to walk home. 

But, he could not procure a horse, and was obliged to 
walk home. 

The first of these examples is pointed right, and 
the second wrong. Both express the same thing, 
although there is some slight difference in words. 
If you reflect a little, and try to find out, after what 
has been previously said, the erroneous pointing, 
you must discover the blunder. Here is the test. 
Join But to he was obliged to walk home, and you 
have some sense— join But to and was obliged to 
walk home, and it tells nothing. Therefore, in the 
first example, you are authorised to put a comma 
after But, and, in the second, I hope that you now 
perceive why there should be none. I must also 
remark that, in the first, there is no necessity for a 
comma after But. This is only high pointing 
which may or may not be adopted, but if we begin 
with it we should continue. For want of proper 
attention, some persons unnecessarily mix it with 
the ordinary mode, and this, in punctuation, is 
equally blameable as it is in grammar, when speaking 
of parliament, to say, it is not consulting the in- 
terest of the nation, and, before the conclusion of 
the sentence, to tell us that they are irritating the 
people. 



80 PUNCTUATION. 

However, some latitude may be even here allowed. 
The most uniform punctuator will be sometimes, 
one might almost say, forced into deviations, and, 
according as he feels, so will his pointing change. 
The following sentence may explain ; — 

Having shewn this to be frequently the cause of 
foolish quarrels, I think that we ought to exert our- 
selves for its suppression. 

Should the w r riter have previously dwelt, particu- 
larly, on the immense number of quarrels occa- 
sioned, he would, if a high pointer, ipl&cefrequently 
between two commas, but, not having that so much 
in view as the folly of their origin, he uses the less 
marked punctuation. But as you see that high point- 
ing presents, at least, some difficulties— as it can 
be dispensed with, and as its rules are, by no means, 
invariably fixed, your best plan will be, to follow 
the common mode, until you find that you under- 
stand the other. Some practice on high pointing is, 
however, instructive, and by observing the news- 
papers and modern books, you will easily learn 
enough for your information. Besides being a con- 
siderable aid to perspicuity, it actually leads to 
grammatical knowledge, as I think I can now clearly 
shew by the following example : — 

On your way to London, do not fail to call at m 
house, where you will find two old acquaintance 
whom you would say are truly pleasant fellows. 

Observe this attentively. There is hardly any thing 
more difficult, for those who know nothing of gram- 



PUNCTUATION. 81 

mar, than this word whom. It is always their 
puzzle, and, when they put it right, they only do so by 
chance. Had you to write any thing like the ex- 
ample given, you would, doubtless, set it down in 
the same manner. Whom you ivould say are truly 
pleasant fellows, does not appear to have any thing 
harsh or unnatural — it reads well enough to your 
ears. But submit it to the test of high pointing, 
and you then see that whom is a blunder : — 

whom, you would say, are truly pleasant fellows. 

By thus separating the component parts, you im- 
mediately perceive that whom are will not do, for you 
know and feel that who are is what is always said. 
You would yourself laugh at whom are truly pleasant 
fellows, but the syntactical absurdity was concealed 
by the intervening words, until you dissected the 
member. 

This is more important than you may imagine. 
I assure you, that many persons who have learned, 
and who think that they know, grammar, would 
write whom instead of who as in the example. Yet 
this is but one out of some hundred capital errors, 
that you may discover through high pointing, as the 
following simple example will shew : — 

Blackstone's Commentaries though a work of 
acknowledged ability, is now of little use without 
explanatory notes. 

This reads smoothly enough as it is, but, if we put 
a comma after Commentaries, we see that work is not 
our nominative, and that are is required instead 



82 PUNCTUATION. 

of is. Lest you should be in doubt on some occa- 
sions, it is right to notice, that you may put a comma 
after but, for, this, and other such words, where 
more than one member intervenes, when there is any 
thing like connection with that towards which it 
bears. You will find an instance in the following, 
where you see that the For reads smooth with ice, 
and thus authorises the comma ; — 

For, notwithstanding his having gone, in winter, to 
Moscow, where he found the cold excessive, and which 
confined him, without intermission, six weeks to his 
room, we could not induce him to come home. 

In cases of inversion, the comma may be used, 
when it would not be proper in plain construc- 
tion : — 

Against any such wanton extravagance, I solemnly 
protest. 

Here, the natural run of expression being inverted, 
the comma is necessary, though in the following, 
which is the regular order, none could, with pro- 
priety, be introduced : — 

I solemnly protest against any such wanton extrava- 
gance. 

This also explains why a comma may be, some- 
times, put after a single word beginning a sentence, 
though it have no connection with any of the fol- 
lowing members, as in this instance :— - 

Formerly, parentheses were so much used, or rather 
abused, that few writers escaped being drawling and 
intolerably tiresome. 



PUNCTUATION. 83 

In this example, the comma is proper, though For- 
merly will not connect with the first words of the 
following members, because the regular place for it, 
in the ordinary train of construction, is after abused. 
If you knew grammar, you would more easily un- 
derstand this, by the distinction of adverbs and 
conjunctions. 

You will, sometimes, write a very long member 
of a sentence, which seems too protracted to be 
read in one breath. On those occasions, never tor- 
ment yourself about the impropriety of dividing it, 
but make the separations, at once, according to your 
first impressions. After reading it, put commas 
wherever you think that one might possibly pause, 
or wish a momentary rest, though the direct con- 
nection will be broken. This is now done by the 
most eminent authors — it is even admitted by the 
grammar-writers, and, that will be, for you, sufficient 
authority. Suppose that you put down the follow- 
ing:— 

Though it will hardly be believed that this old and 
infirm gentleman often rode into the lonesomest and 
most dangerous parts of that wild and almost savage 
country with no other security from robbers than his 
dog and his grey-headed servant, yet he 

You would be vexed at seeing such a seemingly 
indivisible piece of composition, but do not stop to 
puzzle yourself a moment about the impossibility 
of proper separation. Take the pen that you are 
needlessly biting, out of your mouth, and boldly 
put a comma after believed , lonesomest, country ', and 



84 PUNCTUATION. 

robbers, for this is allowable, and even more, if you 
choose high pointing. Give it to half a dozen gram- 
marians who have, each, treated of punctuation, 
and you may be certain that no two of them will 
point it alike. This shews the value of their rules, 
and how near they are to a regular system. 

When speaking of high pointing I said that it 
relieved us from the constant use of semi-colons, 
but I do not think that I explained this sufficiently 
clear, and we shall take the following example : — 

Men too often fight about mere trifles ; but after a 
little reflection, they feel ashamed. 

Men too often fight about mere trifles, but, after a 
little reflection, they feel ashamed. 

The first is the old, and the second the new, mode 
of pointing. The reader cannot fail of seeing the 
comma after but, quite time enough to give the pro- 
per tone, and that is much better than imagining a 
certain rest or pause after trifles. In this respect, 
our old teachers were truly ridiculous, and we may 
now fairly say, that they made their pupils long- 
winded readers. Those portions of silence that 
they enjoined on each stop, gave a drawling charac- 
ter to the best and most lively composition. As 
young ladies used to be told a hundred times a day, 
to hold up their heads and keep in their chins, so 
the never ending command of our school-masters 
was, " Mind your stops." This made their scholars 
read in the most tiresome, spiritless, and sing-song 
manner, as they could not, at once, keep time, and 



PUNCTUATION. 85 

enunciate properly. For reading, therefore, the 
frequent comma is a great improvement, because it 
is not by regularly measured cessations, but by a 
sensible and well directed emphasis, that our hearers 
can understand with facility and satisfaction. It is 
the division of the members, more than any variety 
of points, that should guide, and thus it is that we 
often, involuntarily, and without any instructions, 
very judiciously give to a comma, the time anciently 
fixed and settled for a colon. 

SEMI-COLON. 

One of the greatest improvements in punctuation 
is the rejection of the eternal semi-colons of our an- 
cestors. In the preceding article I observed, that 
high pointing relieved us from this embarrassment, 
and I think that I am sustained in the assertion. In 
latter times, the semi-colon has been gradually dis- 
appearing, not only from the newspapers, but from 
books — insomuch that I believe instances could now 
be produced, of entire pages without a single semi- 
colon. 

This must be considered as an improvement. It 
has rendered punctuation much simpler, and none 
but interested quacks, or wretched cavillers at 
straws, can delight in mysteries. What a quantity 
of useless controversial stuff has been written upon 
the " proper " use of the semi-colon and colon ! 
But I am wrong in saying that it was useless. For 
at last, seeing such interminable contests amongst 
the doughty disputants, common sense prevailed, 



86 PUNCTUATION. 

and the public settled the business by throwing 
their two favorite stops overboard. The school- 
masters, however, picked them up, and are still 
striving to keep them afloat, but all will not do, 
though they have contrived to maintain the semi- 
colon above water. 

In such a sentence as this, " Letters from Oxford 
state that a great excitation prevailed in the Uni- 
versity, but we do not believe it," there would, 
formerly, be a semi-colon after University. Every 
one now, except the old stop-masters, can see that 
it is not only unnecessary but ridiculous. In fact, 
the semi* colon may be dispensed with — nay, it is 
useless, except in cases of detail, or where it may 
be judicious to avoid too many simple sentences. 
Yet, even in such instances, the dash is a proper 
substitute. But where the stream of sense or con- 
nection is, in any way, concerned or understood, a 
comma is the proper divisional mark, unless on occa- 
sions where a kind of hiatus, or a fresh expression 
of force, might require the dash. You have seen 
by the extract from Robertson a sort of proof that the 
semi-colon implies presumptive weakness in the 
construction of a sentence, and, by duly considering 
that, you will be enabled to estimate the great 
importance of the comma. 

COLON. 

I cannot here resist the opportunity of punning — 
the colon has been literally dashed to pieces. This 
puzzling stop, the right application of which, many 
an intelligent youth strove, in vain, to comprehend, is 



PUNCTUATION. 87 

now most efficiently superseded by a little insignifi- 
cant line. The dash has decided its fate, and, as it 
is unnecessary for me to descant on its former use, 
I shall proceed to explain the functions of its con- 
queror. In fact the history, not only of the colon 
and semi-colon but of the comma too, is so unavoid- 
ably connected with the dash as not to be completely 
separable. The next article must, therefore, em- 
brace many considerations that may seem not to 
strictly belong to its immediate subject. 

DASH. 

The introduction of this stop is a most important 
accession. It completes the system of punctuation, 
removes all its doubts and difficulties, and leaves its 
study unembarrassed by subtilties. It puts simpli- 
city in the place of mystery, gives decision in lieu 
of hesitation, divests ignorance of its imposing mask, 
and strips artifice of its deceptious solemnities. 

This is saying a good deal, but I hope to substan- 
tiate it all before I shall have done. I cannot help 
thinking, that the dash came only just in good time, 
to save us from new quibbles, and vexatious impo- 
sitions. It seemed highly probable, that the old 
school-masters and grammarians would have called 
in music to their aid, and regulated punctuation 
accordingly. They seemed not to be at all satisfied 
with their system of pauses. Some of them fixed a 
comma one, a semi-colon two, a colon four, and the 
period and notes of interrogation and exclamation six. 
Others had it regular from the comma to the colon, 

f 2 



88 PUNCTUATION. 

one, two, three, but then, as they dared not shorten 
the period, though it was reduced to four in later 
times, the jump from three to six was not liked, and 
therefore, the most popular arrangement was one, 
three, four, and six. 

After this manner, did those buzzards proceed to 
instruct youth, and it is easy to perceive, that they 
could not have much longer continued such an ill- 
contrived farce. Either a new stop, as a mean be- 
tween the comma and the semi colon, would have 
been introduced, to complete their system, or they 
must have regulated the pauses, as in music, by 
rests. Something to authorise this supposition may 
be gathered from their books. We should, then, 
have had semi-quaver, quaver, crotchet, minim, and 
probably semi-breve, rests. The speed of counting 
them in reading, would depend on the gravity or 
the lightness of the subject, and, on taking up a 
book, it would be necessary to consider w r hether the 
movement should be adagio or allegro ! 

In the midst of their laudable schemes for our 
benefit, the dash made its appearance, and was, at 
first, very kindly received. Ever desirous of mul- 
tiplying difficulties, they were just beginning to 
assign it a place next the colon, with a rest of Jive, 
when they perceived that it aimed at the expulsion 
of that stop. The old legitimates got alarmed, but 
it was too late — the dash, in spite of their calumnies, 
proceeded fearlessly, and not only banished the whole 
colon, but reduced the half one to the most, pitiable 
state of insignificance. 



PUNCTUATION. 89 

The dash, though sometimes elliptically used in 
ancient books, may be said to have come in about 
the time of Sterne, who used it to satiety, for the 
purpose of giving to his writings that sudden transi- 
tive singularity of which he was not a little vain. 
After being tried by others, in the same manner, 
without success, the undefined and dissatisfactory 
nature of the colon suggested a different use, and it 
soon assumed the character of a regular stop. As 
the colon retreated, its half-brother declined so much 
in importance that we are now independent of both 
one and the other. 

The dash is not yet much used in France, except 
in something after Sterne's fashion, and to distin- 
guish new paragraphs in the public prints. It is, 
however, making some progress, as every thing 
must, that is of such obvious utility. M. Catineau, 
in the grammar prefixed to his learned dictionary, 
thus speaks of it : — 

The mark of separation ( — ), which the printers call 
a dash, serves to replace the says he, and says she, 
which, in dialogues, render the narration drawling 
and insipid. Sometimes, also, it answers for a para- 
graph. This sign, in use a long time among the 
English, is only employed in France since a few years 
past. It is, I believe, to Marmontel, that we are 
indebted for its introduction into our literary works. 

I scarcely know where to begin to shew the nu- 
merous uses of the dash. It might suffice to say, 
that where there is any doubt it may be introduced, 
for no one can be at a loss with respect to the 



90 PUNCTUATION. 

comma. This appears to be an advantage. We have, 
in fact, but two points to manage, because the notes 
of interrogation and admiration, with the period, 
have their places so plainly fixed, that they require 
no consideration. Perhaps it may be said that, 
formerly, they contrived to do very well without 
the dash, and that it must, therefore, be superfluous, 
but this I cannot admit. They did not do very 
well, formerly, without it, for I contend that it has 
improved our style, and enabled us to denote our 
meaning more clearly. The cumbrous machinery 
of colons and semi- colons, retarding the conclusive 
sense, afforded a constant opening for the parenthe- 
sis, which may be called the Paul Pry of composi- 
tion. Yet, where there is none, either direct or 
implied, we see, by the following example, that 
those stops add neither force nor beauty to compo- 
sition : — 

The dens of lions and nurseries of wolves know no 
such cruelty as this : these savage inhabitants of the 
desert obey God and nature in their being tender and 
careful of their offspring : they will hunt, watch, fight, 
and almost starve for the preservation of their young ; 
never part with them, never forsake them, till they are 
able to shift for themselves. 

This is a specimen of the mysteries of punctuation, 
before the dash was known. It is from Locke's 
Government, Book i. Sect. 56, but there is another 
further on in Book ii. Sect. 6, shewing three colons, 
with some semi-colons, and containing altogether 
144 words! The consequence was, that the sen- 



PUNCTUATION. 91 

tences were protracted to a tiresome extent, and, what 
was worse, punctuation appeared, to ordinary capa- 
cities, such a very difficult matter, that it was given 
up as belonging only to the learned world ! 

The dash has chased away all this necromancy, 
and drawn aside the mysterious curtain that concealed 
the simplicity of punctuation. I think the follow- 
ing arrangement more pleasing than Mr. Locke's 
mode : — 

The dens of lions, and the nurseries of wolves, know 
no such cruelty as this. These savage inhabitants of 
the desert obey God and nature, in their being tender 
and careful of their offspring. They will hunt, watch,, 
fight, and almost starve for the preservation of their 
young — never part with them, never forsake them, till 
they are able to shift for themselves. 

I stand upon this. Give me any coloned and 
semi-coloned sentence whatever, and, if I cause 
no improvement, I engage to make it read as forci- 
bly with only the comma and dash. And see with 
what ease this can be done. In the preceding, 
though I did not alter or add a single word, I had 
only occasion to use one dash, and, there, I do 
maintain, that it is far superior in fitness, to either 
the colon or semi-colon. I admit that there is no 
long-windedness in the sentence, but I have, in 
Chapter II, given sufficient proof of my being able 
to correct that also, without using the old stops. 

The more that I examine this matter, the more I 
am convinced, that the composition of sentences re- 
quires only the comma and dash. I say that it re- 



92 PUNCTUATION. 

quires only those two stops, because, though I might 
not absolutely prohibit the semi -colon in details, it 
will be seen that I use neither whole nor half colon 
myself, and that such total rejection is no disadvan- 
tage. As for the : — at the disjunction of a paragraph, 
it is only a breaker, and I use it merely because I 
find that it is now, on such occasions, customary, or 
fashionable, in printing, and I am not disposed to 
quarrel about trifles. It there looks very striking, 
and it is particularly explicative, where we have to 
say much, after referring to a quotation, as in the 
paragraph following. It seems to say, " Here is 
now the extract of which I spoke." I think, indeed, 
that the colon, with or without the dash, might be 
solely confined to this station. The . — is also used 
by printers for what are called side heads, as in the 
translation from Buffon, but with such marks we 
have no concern, for they cannot be said to interfere 
w r ith the main object of punctuation. It must be 
understood, however, that I have no objection to the 
colon or semi- colon, in the titles of books. There, 
shew and appearance are allowable, and an author 
should always consign their punctuation to the better 
judgment of the printer. The writer is not sup- 
posed to be concerned with either the pointing or the 
arrangement of his title page, chapter headings, 
index, or such things as must be controlled by the 
fashion of the day. Two dashes are now very much 
used instead of the upright curves for parentheses 
as, " Our readers must, by this time, be fully con- 
vinced — for we have often impressed it on them — 






PUNCTUATION. 93 

that a fair representation only can insure justice." 
The old parenthesis ( ) is rarely used of late except 
to enclose some referential remark. Mr. Lennie 
says that u commas are now used instead of paren- 
theses," and that is true since the introduction of 
high pointing. 

The following is extracted from a newspaper. It 
is given as a specimen of one of those permissible 
detail sentences already explained, where the semi- 
colon claims admittance. I have, here, an opportu- 
nity of exhibiting the superiority of the dash, over 
that or the colon. Place one or the other in its 
stead, and, if you have to comment upon every as- 
sertion which it separates, your eye will not so 
readily glance upon the next in succession as when 
marked by the dash. Nay, you could reckon them 
in half the time, should you have occasion to say, 
" here are eight distinct assertions, besides the con- 
clusive deduction or inference." According to my 
custom in quotation, I make no change in the ori- 
ginal punctuation, but I must observe that it re- 
quires none, for the pointing is, in my opinion, un- 
objectionable : — ■ 

If it had been the professed object of Captain Hall 
to write a political work, all this would have been very 
well, although, even then, it would have been quite pos- 
sible to shew that a government, under which the 
nhabitants of the United States have lived, upwards 
of forty years, in the enjoyment of domestic tranquillity 
and of almost uninterrupted peace — a government, 
which has carried them triumphantly through a war 
with the most powerful nation of Europe — under which 

f 3 



94 PUNCTUATION. 

pathless forests have been converted into fruitful plains 
— insignificant villages have sprung into noble cities — 
commercial intercourse has been established with every 
region of ' m the earth — education has been fostered — 
knowledge of every kind has been promoted — religion 
has nourished, and a greater degree of personal happi- 
ness and comfort has been enjoyed, than has fallen to 
the lot of any nation in Europe— it would, we say, have 
been quite possible to shew that a government that has 
produced such effects as these, cannot really be quite 
so bad as the aristocratic prejudices of Hall induced 
him to think. 

Having now instanced the superiority and strength 
of the dash over our two consumptive claimants 
for pre-eminence, I shall put it in a still more 
advantageous light by demonstrating that it is the 
only stop that we can, with strict and unexception- 
able propriety, use on some occasions. Not to 
multiply examples, I refer you \o p. 37, and there, 
I say, that the dash after fruit is the only stop 
capable of expressing that kind of non-descript 
vacation or sudden halt, which so elegantly and so 
happily supplies the place of the slovenly &c. The 
following is also another elucidation : — 

What a lamentable situation his ! Wife, children, 
mother, sisters, friends — all desert this hapless victim 
of perfidy and ingratitude ! 

Formerly, a colon would come after friends, but 
now that we have the more expressive dash, no one 
of good taste could adopt any other stop. 

Some, who carry their notions of aspect to great 
refinement, condemn the dash on account of its 



PUNCTUATION. VJ 

appearance. Were no other than the regular 
letters of the text used in printing, this might have 
some weight, but when we have large and small 
type, italics, words and sentences in large and small 
capitals, greek characters, figures, stars, and various 
referential marks, it is childish to start this as an 
objection. Besides, those attempts do not always 
turn out to be improvements. I have seen a work 
on which no expense was spared, where figures were 
excluded, and I cannot forget how painful it was 
to read the reign of George III. Dates and large 
sums constantly occurred, and instead of " March 
23rd, 1789, £3,489,642-16-7^, were voted," which 
the eye would take in at a glance, the sight was 
distressed by full words, thus, 

March twenty -third, one thousand, seven hundred 
and eighty-nine, three millions, four hundred and 
eighty-nine thousand, six hundred and forty-two 
pounds, sixteen shillings and seven pence half-penny 
were voted. 

This may please more refined judges of elegance, 
but I confess that 1 am so stupid as not to see any 
advantage in giving us unnecessary and unprofitable 
labour. I think it would be an improvement, to 
use an m where there are even millions, as thus: — 

The national debt was £239m. in 1793, and was 
then little more than a century old. In 1815 it was 
858m., which shews an addition of 619m. in 22 years. 
It is now nearly 800m. and the interest alone is 29m. 
We granted 20m. to our West India merchants on the 
abolition of slavery, but they got only about 1 5m., for 
the expenses of distribution consumed a good part of 
the remaining 5m. 



96 PUNCTUATION. 

No one could mistake this m, and it would greatly 
relieve the eye, for, in the preceding paragraph, it 
saves no fewer than 48 cyphers. I strongly recom- 
mend its consideration to our newspapers, which 
are always foremost in every thing concerning 
literary improvement. It need not be confined to 
money, as it would be found useful in rough notices 
of the population of different countries, and of other 
matters. I am almost inclined to recommend a t 
where even hundred thousands occur, as 7o0t. for 
750,000, but it is not prudent to ask too much at 
once. When we get the m it will be time enough 
to look for the t. 

Punctuation, as we understand it, was unknown 
to the old Greeks and Romans, though some allusion 
to it, not well understood now, is made by Cicero. 
It is a modern invention, and has certainly made 
very slow progress towards system, for all the rules, 
as laid down by grammarians, have tended rather to 
mysterize than to elucidate. The general definition 
of a colon is, that it is next to a period, but not quite 
so complete, because, though it contain the substance, 
something may be added to further strengthen the 
sense. Let us see how this explanation is sustained. 
There can be but one period used for a sentence, 
and that marks its termination. So far we can 
proceed securely, for, in this, all the grammarians 
agree. Now, if the colon be only merely not a period 
because something more may be added, surely, when 
that something is added, there ought to be a period, 
and the sentence should conclude. Yet, in defiance 



PUNCTUATION. 97 

of this obvious inference from their own express 
descriptions, nothing is said against two or more 
colons in one sentence — thus admitting the mon- 
strosity of two or more sentences in one ! 

This deserves most particular notice. It puts in 
the strongest possible light the absurdity of those 
rules that were so plausibly laid down, and yet so 
palpably outraged by the makers themselves. A 
more egregious instance of legislation and mal-appli- 
cation can hardly be adduced. The law, clearly, 
authorised but one colon in a sentence, and yet the 
unfortunate student was, constantly, appalled by 
two or three, in the most legitimate writings of the 
day! 

A favorite use of the colon, as given by gram- 
marians, is, to separate the^two great component 
parts of a comparison, and in this they are so decisive, 
that they always explain it by such an example as 
the following : — 

As men, from want of proper reflection, unthinkingly 
defend the grossest errors, and thereby cause much 
confusion and mischief : so, a monkey has, unwittingly, 
cut its throat by imitating its master at shaving. 

Now, I say, that there should be neither colon, nor 
semi-colon, but a simple comma, after mischief. 
The colon would never have been introduced here, 
but for that fruitful source of vicious punctuation, 
the vain attempt to fix portions of time for pausing 
on each stop. Take away the As and begin with 
Men, and then, indeed, there may be some sense in 
the colon. I w r ould, however, recommend the dash, 



98 PUNCTUATION. 

because the reason of its appropriation is more 
easily comprehended by the pupil. Is he not to be 
pitied, in being at the mercy of all those who choose 
to give their own capricious explanations of the 
colon and semi-colon ? I now find, on looking into 
Mr. Lindley Murray's grammar, that he adopts the 
semi-colon, in simile or comparison, though his 
predecessors insisted on the colon ! 

If the pupil look into books where those stops 
are used, he is involved in a labyrinth of vagaries. 
Here is a sentence from Richardson's preface to 
Clarissa Harlowe, which I may very fairly quote, 
because it is punctuated with considerable attention 
to colons, and semi-colons, as if he w r as anxious to 
distinguish it particularly from the w r ork itself, 
which is dashed with an awful prodigality : — 

The principal of those two young ladies is proposed 
as an exemplar to her sex : nor is it any objection to 
her being-so, that she is not in all respects a perfect 
character. 

Here there should be no colon, for the first five 
words after sex are equivalent to, and it is no 
objection — which would require only a comma 
previously. I suppose our author wished, that the 
reader should rest after sex until he could count 
three or four ! But he is no example for punctuation. 
His notions on this subject are too chaotic for criti- 
cism. He saw certain charms in the dash, that 
seemed to favor his crude conceptions of boldness, 
and he uses, or rather abuses, it most licentiously. 
But as I know that Richardson would be supported 



PUNCTUATION. 99 

by hundreds of grammarians, in putting a colo 
after sex, this, and other such attempts at rules, 
shew us that they must only increase the difficulties 
of the learner. Supposing that he has to write 
something like the following : — 

I offered him my house at Eichmond, but he would 
not listen to that, nor would he remain in London. 

Could he, i say, be blamed for putting a colon after 
that? And, if anything like fixed meaning can 
be gathered from the rules, he would be justified in 
clapping a semi-colon to Richmond. The sentence, 
then, stands thus : — 

I offered him my house at Richmond ; but he would 
not listen to that : nor would he remain in London. 

Look at it. There is a sentence pointed according 
to the directions of learned men — aye of men who 
can see, distinctly, six cases to every one of our 
simple nouns. 

I must not pass by Mr. Murray's notice of the 
dash. Here is one of his examples for its use : — 

If acting conformably to the will of our creator ; — if 
promoting the welfare of mankind around us ; — if 
securing our own happiness ; — are objects of the 
highest moment : — then we are loudly called upon, to 
cultivate and extend the great interests of religion and 
virtue. 

What, give us a new task ! Had we not enough to 
manage already, without double stops ? No, Mr. 
Murray, this will not do. Take away your three 
semi-colons and put a comma in place of your co- 



100 TUNCTUATION. 

loned dash, and then the sentence will be properly 
and intelligibly pointed. What do those stopped 
dashes signify ? If such unmeaningly double point- 
ing be allowed, the dash may indeed be " a perilous 
thing for a young grammarian to handle." But 
let no such absurd misapplications deter you. I 
have shewn that the use of the dash is, not only 
very easy but uncommonly simple. Mr. Murray, 
though I am sure unthinkingly, would introduce a 
new difficulty, still more incomprehensible than the 
colon and semi-colon. We had nearly reached the 
top of the mountain, when a new and unexpected 
obstacle is opposed. 

If such fatuity be tolerated, why then, fill the 
cup of nonsense to the brim, and give us the 
" punctum minusculum," or little peiiod, which 
modern sagacity has brought into the middle of 
sentences in ancient Latin. Mr. Mair has given an 
admirable reason for retaining it in his Cortius' 
Sallust — that he finds it is used in Germany and 
Holland ! That was so unanswerable, that he 
preserves it in the English part also, as per fol- 
lowing beautiful instance, Bel. Cat. cap. 7 : — 

But the state having obtained its liberty, it is incredible 
to say how great it grew in a short time, such an appe- 
tite for glory had now prevailed. 

What are your stopped-dashed, or trebly coloned 
sentences, compared to this ? Mr. Mair says, that 
the punctum minusculum is greater than the colon 
or semi-colon, but not so great as the great period ! 
This should not be overlooked by the stop-dash 



PUNCTUATION. 101 

improvers of punctuation, and they ought to order 
me a piece of plate for such a valuable hint. Mr. 
Mair is so fond of this dwarf period, that he uses it 
in the English, as will be seen in the subjoined 
extract,when it is not in the Latin, but that may be 
in compliment to the Dutch and Germans : — 

Tgitur de Catiline Accordingly, I shall dis- 

conjuratione, quam ve- cuss briefly the story of Cati- 

rissume potero, paucis line's conspiracy, with as 

absolvam. Nam id fa- great a regard to truth as I 

cinus in primis ego me- can. for I esteem that enter- 

morabile existumo, see- prise eminently remarkable 

leris atque periculi novi- for the strangeness of the 

tate. wickedness and danger that 
attended it. 

I have endeavoured, in vain, to comprehend, by 
the most careful and unprejudiced perusal, what 
particular impression authors wish to make by , — 
; — : — in the body of a sentence, and, as men of 
sense, they will allow, that their readers ought to 
be the best judges of this matter. There is no use 
in writing if we have not readers. It is for them, 
and not for ourselves, that we write, and we should 
keep in view only what they can comprehend, and 
not what seems to defy communication, or but floats 
in our own imagination. If the dash is to be thus 
disfigured, and made a new source of ambiguities, 
better it were never invented — better to hobble 
on, as formerly, with our enigmatical colons and 
semi-colons. But I again entreat you not to be 
daunted or misled by such preposterous innovations. 



102 PUNCTUATION. 

You now know the legitimate and reasonable use of 
the dash, and, with that, and the comma, you can 
give the greatest force, and the clearest character, 
to every expression, so as that the reader cannot 
possibly misconceive your meaning and intention. 

I shall now give an extract from Mr. Murray's 
article on punctuation, to shew of what little use 
his rules, or those of others, can be, for the colon or 
semi-colon : — 

In the generality of compound sentences there is 
frequent occasion for commas: as will appear from the 
following view of the different occasions to which they 
are adapted. 

No one could, even from Mr. Murray's own colon 
directions, think it right to put that stop after com- 
mas. It might, indeed, be admissible, had he said 
this will instead of as will, but, in the present form, 
common sense points out that it should be a comma. 
Such, however, are the inconsistencies to which the 
most careful are liable, when they fill their heads 
with imaginary notions of propriety, and attach im- 
portance to things whose power is only illusory. 

LONG DASH. 

Hitherto, I have only treated of the short dash, 
and I shall now explain the functions of the 
long one, which, as I before observed, may be about 
double the length of the other. 

It serves to mark omissions, and unseemly or 
dangercus words, or what may be necessary for con- 
cealment : — 



PUNCTUATION. 103 

On Monday last Mr. A was seen near his uncle's 

at House, and then took the road to Villa. Our 

information is authentic, but we give no names, because 
his father will know what the blanks mean. 

It serves to mark fragments, or detached quota- 
tions : — 

Hume, fancifully relating King Charles' execution, 
says — It is impossible to describe the grief, indignation, 

and astonishment, which took place Women are 

said to have cast forth the untimely fruit of their womb 

■ some suddenly fell down dead The very 

pulpits were bedewed with unsuborned tears . But, 

although the feeling may have been very strong, it is 
evident that this account borders on the marvellous. 

Were it not for the dashes, the foregoing should be 
given in some such manner as this : — 

" It is impossible to describe the grief, indignation, 
and astonishment which took place" * * * * " Women 
are said to have cast forth the untimely fruit of their 
womb" * * * * "Some suddenly fell down dead" 
*'*•**« The very pulpits were bedewed with un- 
suborned tears." 

If the stars be not inserted, I suppose the colon 
must come in, and I submit to any unprejudiced 
reader, whether mine is not equally plain, without 
all this trouble — to say nothing of the frequent 
turned commas. The dash after says, shews that 
the first quotation is not the commencement of 
Hume's account — the second shews a new quotation 
— the third, by having a small s to some, shews that 
what follows down to dead, is a fragment of that 



]04 TUNCTUATION. 

sentence of which, what immediately preceded was 
a portion — the fourth, a new 7 quotation from a new 
sentence, and the fifth, by having a period at the 
extremity, denotes the conclusion of all the borrowed 
matter. Tt appears to me, that every thing that 
can be desired for precision, is here embraced. As 

for the , which is so much used by the French 

printers, I consider it only as an evasion of the 
elliptical dash, and it should be confined to its pro- 
per place — to direct the eye along a vacancy, towards 
figures or other things near the margin. 

I am induced to recommend the long dash instead 
of the &c, in those cases, where that objectionable 
abbreviation may be tolerated. In p. 20, after 
infant, it would do without any stop after it, and, 
in p. 38, it might be put after purpose, with a 
comma at the end. 

In an interrupted dialogue, I know of no stop 
that could, unexceptionably, supply the long dash. 
If we leave only a blank, there may, in some in- 
stances, be a doubt whether the printer omitted 
something : — 

Q. Did you see James at any time on Tuesday? 

Was he 

A. I'll not say as to any time, but he 

Q. I ask plainly was he in — — 

A. I know what you mean, but I do not think 

This appears to be very expressive. Without 
any explanation, we see, at once, that A first inter- 
rupted Q — that Q then interrupted A, who was in 
turn interrupted by Q. 



PUNCTUATION. 1 05 

Mr. Murray admits the long dash, for omissions, 
and calls it an Ellipsis, and others use it to denote 
a new paragraph, where space is valuable. As it is 
right thatyou should perfectly understand this, I shall 
particularly explain it. If room were a great object 
to me, I would, instead of leaving a break after the 
last Q, go on with the next word, drawing a line 

after the period, thus, Q. Mr. Murray. You 

see that this is a very unimportant purpose for the 
dash. The French, in their newspapers, and some- 
times in books, place a short one before a paragraph 
commencing a new subject. This is in order that 
the reader may not confound the different articles, 
as each may contain either one or several para- 
graphs. But there seems to be no necessity for any 
such thing. 

I shall now explain what M. Catineau means 
by the says he, and says she, as already quoted. 
Suppose a narration like the following : — 

Emilia and Henry being now alone, she said, " I am 
sorry to see you so dejected" — " How can I be other- 
wise after your cruel behaviour" — " Cruel ! why it is 
all your own fault" — " My fault ! How can you say 
such a thing ? Did I not" — " Now if you only be calm 
for a moment, I shall satisfactorily" — " Impossible ! 
Give me a promise that you will never see Mainville 

again, and that you will" " Have patience for one 

moment, and I will explain alL" 

Here you see that our friend, the dash, saves the 
says lies and says shes, and renders it unnecessary to 
describe the impetuous interruptions of the impas- 



106 PUNCTUATION. 

sioned Henry. We can even see, by the long dash 
after will, that he was rather stopped by his own 
rage than by Emilia, and that she took advantage of 
the pause, to soften his furious jealousy. Could 
your colons and semi-colons do all this ? 



Having now relieved you from all the vexations, 
difficulties and perplexities, arising from the semi- 
colon and colon, you must take care not to abuse the 
dash. Go on with your commas, until you find that 
there is an evident insufficiency in the stop — then, 
and then only, bring in the dash. Might I venture 
upon any thing like a general direction, I would say, 
that you are to use it where you were accustomed to 
think a colon necessary, for, having shewn you that 
the comma now, in most instances, replaces the 
semi-colon, perhaps it were best to keep that out of 
your mind entirely. 

Avoid, most particularly, the use of the dash after 
the fashion of Sterne, Richardson, or such writers, 
whose talents may excuse, though not justify, the 
wildest deviations and fantasies. Consider the dash 
as what it really is, a stop or point of the most use- 
ful and comprehensive nature. If you make it serve 
every foolish conceit, or if you force it to mark every 
rhapsodical division that has no real existence, you 
lose its advantage as a stop. You will, then, be 
compelled to resort to the whole and half-colon, 
which, like Phaeton and the sun-horses, you will find 
too unmanageable for your feeble hand, and your com- 
position will only draw laughter from the judicious. 



PUNCTUATION. 107 

A very good general direction might be, to con- 
fine yourself, except in details, or for marking a 
parenthesis, to one dash in a sentence. If you see 
occasion for more, always suspect long-windedness 
in the composition. Read over again what you have 
written, and you will generally discover, that you 
have either a redundancy of expression, or that you 
are forcing, into one sentence, the matter that should 
form another. 

Having found after-pointing to be an excellent 
mode of learning punctuation, I cannot too strongly 
recommend it to your attention. Instead of putting 
the stops as you go on, w r rite the whole sentence 
first, ahd then place them as you see occasion. By 
this, you will not only save time in thinking, but 
you will bring them in more fitly, and have less 
necessity for alterations. A continuance of this 
practice for a few months, will enable you to punc- 
tuate as you proceed, in the usual manner. 

PARTICULAR EXAMINATION OF SEMI- 
COLON AND COLON " RULES." 

Whatever way I turn— whatever authorities I 
consult, the inconsistency of the colon and semi- 
colon explanations is manifest, From w r hat can be 
learned of the last mentioned stop, could any one 
expect to find in Mr. Murray's comma directions 
the two following examples ? 

No. 1. He feared want, hence, he over- valued riches. 

No. 2. This conduct may heal the difference, nay, it 
may constantly prevent any in future, 



108 PUNCTUATION* 

If the semi-colon rules can be at all understood, 
that stop ought to go after want, as it now stands. 
The comma would, indeed, be proper, if he said 
" and hence," for that makes a great alteration. 
This clearly shews the value of the dash, which al- 
ways comes in readily, and with propriety, in cases 
of doubt or hiatus. If Mr. Murray's notions of 
punctuation were founded on tenable or fixed prin- 
ciples, he could not, for one moment, have hesitated 
about putting a semi-colon after want, because, ac- 
cording to his own system, it is, evidently, the pro- 
per stop, though I think that the dash would more 
expressively mark the separation. 

The same remarks apply to the second example. 
Particular force of opinion is intended by the nay. 
We are suddenly arrested to take a new and impor- 
tant consideration of a matter, and yet, instead of 
the more segregating half-colon, we'find only a simple 
comma ! Now, to shew that I understand what I 
am talking about, I shall present the sentence in its 
proper comma form : — 

This conduct may heal, nay, it may constantly pre- 
vent, any difference in future. 

In this construction, the comma punctuation is un- 
exceptionable, but in Mr. Murray's, either a semi- 
colon or dash is, obviously, necessary after difference. 
The semi-colon is, here, even more decided than in 
the first example, for a colon might answer after 
" want," but, in the present instance, it would, 
strange to say, appear much too strong! Where 
was Mr. Murray's , — at such an important time ? 



PUNCTUATION. 109 

Since he authorises the stopped dash, he might have 
made it work to support his comma illustration. 
However, my objections to Mr. Murray's pointing 
arise, chiefly, from its incompatibility with his semi- 
colon rules. In explaining that stop, he says, 

No. 3. Straws swim upon the surface ; but pearls lie 
at the bottom. 

This shews, very strikingly, the radical error of the 
old systems. No one, with clear views of the matter, 
could offer such an example. The sentence is, 
altogether, so brief, and the eye takes in the whole 
so quickly, that no mark but a comma after surface, 
could be either necessary or proper — none but a 
man who had a tincture of the time-reckoning plan 
in his head, would think of a semi-colon. A gleam 
of light shot through Mr. Murray's imagination, 
when giving No. 2. He saw that the comma after 
nay must be so instantaneously seen by the reader, 
as to render no other stop necessary after difference, 
but he forget how ill this accorded with his more 
cloudy conceptions of the semi-colon. 

That the dash has a certain character, far more 
valuable than the colon or semi-colon, can be now 
seen. Without any discrepance or contrariety, it 
answers where those stops are questionable, while, 
at the same time, it marks the strongest separations, 
with propriety and effect. Their most strenuous 
advocates will not, I think, object to the follow- 
ing :— 

He feared want — hence, he over- valued riches. 

G 



1 1 PUNCTUATION. 

This conduct may heal the difference — nay, it may 
constantly prevent any in future. 

Originally we had only the square period and 
colon, and this last was used as a full stop, and the 
colon as a comma ! But something besides this colon- 
comma was wanted, to mark the more separable 
parts or members of a sentence, and the semi-colon 
was invented, as far as I have observed, somewhere 
about 1500. I do not recollect to have met a com- 
ma earlier, and I am inclined to think that it was 
invented a little after the semi-colon. The period 
was then transferred, as now, to the end of sen- 
tences, and the colon was assigned something like its 
present duty. This was pretty nearly the march of 
punctuation. There are cases where the comma is 
too weak and the colon too strong, and it was this 
chasm that suggested the semi-colon. But it is to be 
understood, that I now mean the true and unmis- 
takeable stops, that is, the comma formed of a round 
dot with a curve at the bottom, and the semi- colon 
by a dot over that. I am forced to be thus particu- 
lar, because I know that ill defined colons and periods 
are met with in old MSS., and in printed books of 
the 15th century, and that they may be, without 
sharp inspection, mistaken for commas and semi-co- 
lons. This want is supplied by the semi-colon, and 
had its use been confined there, punctuation would 
be, what it really is when not obscured by sophis- 
try, extremely simple. Formerly, nothing was 
considered worthy of attention that was unaccompa- 
nied by difficulty — in other words, people delighted 



PUNCTUATION. 1 1 1 

in every thing that seemed mysterious, controversial, 
or hard to be attained. The semi-colon was, accor- 
dingly, assigned stations for which it was naturally 
unsuited, andfromthis fallacious attempt arose all the 
misconceptions of punctuation that disgraced those 
times, and which have yet some influence at the 
present day. If Mr. Murray had confined himself 
to such examples as the following, no one of com- 
mon sense could find fault with the semi-colon : — 

No. 4. Philosophers assert, that nature is unlimited 
in her operations ; that she has inexhaustible treasures 
in reserve ; that knowledge will always be progressive ; 
and that all future generations will continue to make 
discoveries, of which we have not the least idea. 

This, and sentences of a somewhat similar nature, 
will explain, at once, the functions of the semi-colon. 
On any other occasion, its introduction will be gene- 
rally found either unnecessary or injurious. I shall 
now speak decisively, or rather, I should say, with- 
out any reserve — I dissent from all the other rules 
for the semi-colon. I do not admit the necessity, 
and I deny the propriety, of that stop, in the follow- 
ing examples, which I may say are all from Mr. 
Murray, because I find our later grammarians only 
copy, in substance, that gentleman's directions : — 

No. 5. Experience teaches us, that an entire retreat 
from worldly affairs is not what religion requires ; nor 
does it even enjoin a great retreat from them. 

No. 6. As coals are to burning coals, and wood to 
fire j so is a contentious man to strife. 

g2 



112 PUNCTUATION. 

No. 7. As a roaring lion and a raging bear ; so is 
a wicked ruler over the poor people. 

No. 8. As the desire of approbation, when it works 
according to reason, improves the amiable part of our 
species in every thing that is laudable ; so nothing is 
more destructive to them, when it is governed by 
vanity and folly. 

No. 9. Mercy and truth preserve the king ; and 
his throne is upheld by mercy. 

No. 10. He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor 
man ; he that loveth wine and oil shall not be rich. 

No. 11. Do not flatter yourself with the hope of 
perfect happiness ; for there is no such thing in the 
world. 

No. 12. Haughtiness is always repulsive; but 
vanity is mostly contemptible. 

No. 13. We are constantly striving at wealth, and 
to obtain power over our fellow men, by means that are 
not always the most honorable ; but such ambi- 
tion can never bring peace of mind or true con- 
tentment. 

The semi-colons should be replaced by commas 
in all these examples, except the tenth, which re- 
quires either a colon or dash, as will appear from 
the colon rules themselves : — 

No. 13. Do not flatter yourself with the hope of 
perfect happiness : there is no such thing in the world. 

What difference is there between this, and No. 10, 
to authorise a semi-colon after man? The reason 
assigned for the semi-colon in the eleventh example 



PUNCTUATION. ] 13 

is, because the conjunction for is expressed, and yet 
the same stop is put where there is neither and, nor 
any other divisional conjunction whatever ! I am 
almost tired of noticing such coarse incongruities — 
yet I cannot let the following pass, because it is a 
particular example of a compound sentence : — 

No. 15. Virtue refines the affections, but vice debases 
them. 

Compare this with No. 12, which is a most remark- 
able and never-omitted semi-colon rule amongst our 
punctuative instructors, and is it not evident that, 
while the practice of such writers is so constantly at 
variance with their own directions, their pupils can 
learn nothing as a secure guidance to the knowledge 
of punctuation ? 

PERIOD. 

This, now generally called a full point, is only 
used to denote the conclusion of a sentence, and to 
mark an abbreviation. In this latter case, it does 
not exclude the stop that each member may demand. 
We can write, for I do not advise it, the Dr. did 
not see his patient to day, because the period here 
is no stop, but in the following a comma is necessary, 
I sent for the Dr., but he did not come. However, 
should a sentence finish with an abbreviation, there 
is no necessity for a second period, as, I distinctly 
say, that I always address him Esq., and not Mr. 

This punctuating of periods is only a few years 
in use, but it is seldom any real advantage. Abbre- 

g 3 



1 1 4 PUNCTUATION. 

viations should be avoided as much as possible, 
because they have a slovenly effect, and sometimes 
cause misunderstandings and errors. With personal 
titles they are the most allowable, but, unless im- 
mediately connected with a name, curtailment is 
scarcely defensible. You may write Gen. Col. or 
Cap. Jones, but to shorten these on other occasions, 
as the Gen. Col. or Cap. did not come to day, has a 
curious appearance. As well might we justify this, 
So far from being a gen. he was not Jit to be a col. , 
or even a cap. Abbreviations are latterly avoided 
by respectable writers. Even the i. e., the Sfc, 
marks of brevity, and such are gradually disappear- 



NOTES OF INTERROGATION AND 
ADMIRATION. 

Of those two stops, I am satisfied with the usual 
explanations in the grammars, and I shall not make 
many remarks. The Spaniards are not contented 
with placing them at the end, but they must have 
them also at the beginning :— 

<;De quien es esta casa? 

Whose is this house ? 
I Buen raciocinio ! 

Fine reasoning ! 

I think that I see you laughing at this, but it is not 
fair except you laugh also at our stopped dashes, 
for the double points of the Spaniard are not so 
preposterous. He gives at least an intelligible reason 



PUNCTUATION. 115 

— that they are put at the beginning of questions 
and exclamations, to prepare the reader for taking 
the proper tone of voice, but your stopped dasher 
does not. because he cannot, explain why he throws 
his , — ; — : — into the body of a sentence. You 
must conceive what he means — the thing is too 
intellectually delicate for description ! 

I must make another remark. Some parenthesise 
a note of admiration, as thus : — 

This author further asserts, that Voltaire was proud, 
ignorant ( ! ) and passionate. 

The meaning intended to be conveyed is, that what- 
ever truth or falsehood might be in the first and last 
charges, none but a stupid driveller would accuse 
Voltaire of being " ignorant, " but were that word 
put in italics, the object would be equally well 
answered. As to using two or three notes of ad- 
miration to signify double or treble surprise, I 
shall leave that to your own discretion. 

The note of interrogation is also, like the admi- 
ration, sometimes parenthesised, as, " Our last ac- 
counts state, that Mr. Williams, the Governor (?) 
of the island, had not arrived." Here it insinuates 
that Mr. Williams is not the governor, and wher- 
ever either of those two stops are placed in this 
manner, they throw a doubt on the correctness of 
the preceding word. When a man reads for others 
he should announce their introduction, for the 
satisfaction of his hearers. Sometimes when a 
question is asked to which no answer is expected, 



1 1 6 PUNCTUATION. 

the note of admiration is used, as in the following 
instance : — 

Is it because botany is one of ,the sciences which 
demands the smallest range of intellect, that the French 
have made themselves more conspicuous in it than in 
most others — and may absolutely claim a superiority 
over England ! Ed, Rev. vol. 34, page 395. 

CAPITALS. 

I introduce this subject because it is connected 
with punctuation, though I have nothing new to 
say, for every necessary direction is fully explained 
in the grammars. I cannot, however, help remark- 
ing, that here we are much better off than our fore- 
fathers. They were compelled to put a capital 
letter to every substantive, and that, though simple 
to a grammarian, gave others great trouble. Now, 
we are obliged only to put a capital at the com- 
mencement of a sentence, the names of God, of men 
and women, and of countries and towns — the pro- 
noun I, and the interjection O, and at every new 
line in poetry. Besides, we have a discretional 
power to put capitals to such words as we may 
wish to particularly distinguish. 

This is as it should be. Yet what an important 
revolution it produced in that department of litera- 
ture ! So important, indeed, that it makes me hope 
to see punctuation rendered equally simple. 

NOTICE OF CRITICISMS. 

Having now developed, what I consider, a rational 
and easy mode to obviate the difficulties ofpunctua- 



PUNCTUATION. 



117 



tion, I must notice the objections that it has called 
forth. While the public press has given my work, 
generally, even more praise than I could reasonably 
expect, it has, I believe without an exception, dis- 
approved of my suggestions on the dash. As I view 
those objections in a friendly light, so I hope that 
my explanations will be received with a corre- 
sponding good feeling and temper. 

The dash appears to be the ground of complaint, 
on the presumption that it would be the constant re- 
source of slovenly writers, and reduce composition 
to nothing but an unsightly mass of words and 
strokes. Perhaps it might, for where is there a 
liberty given that is not abused by the careless or 
stupid ? But this is quite opposed to my directions, 
which strictly enjoin a very sparing use of the dash, 
and also previously where I condemn, in the strong- 
est terms, its combination with other stops. If it 
be still objected, that my recommendations for its 
general adoption in place of the colons and semi- 
colons would inevitably lead to an unmeasured 
abuse, I offer this work as an answer. I ask does 
it shew any extraordinary or remarkable number of 
dashes ? Nay, I ask, are there more than may be 
found in books, where the prohibited stops also 
abound? I give my own example, and if that will 
not do, why then example is unavailing. What more 
can any one do, than to offer sound proofs of what 
he proposes to teach ? and since no one has said 
thaf my writing is disfigured by constant dashes, or 



118 PUNCTUATION. 

that it is not, generally, very readily comprehended, 
there can, surely, be no danger in permitting the 
learner to follow my plan. 

Some oppose the dash according to my " theory," 
chiefly because it would become the resource of 
indolent or inexperienced writers, though they have 
no objection to its occasional use. 

It appears to be forgotten that my object is to 
instruct persons of humble information or require- 
ments, and that I have distinctly said that the dash, 
or in other words my system, is unnecessary for 
those who understand the proper use of the colon 
and semi-colon. This makes it appear plain, that 
my darling object was not the total abrogation or ex- 
pulsion of those stops, and, having explicitly men- 
tioned it once, that was enough for my purpose. 
I could not be constantly alluding to it, when urging 
their rejection, but I think it will be admitted that 
their gradual decline is not a proof of our retrograd- 
ing in composition. Fifty persons now write pass- 
ably for one formerly, when every sentence was 
copiously strewed with these points. 

No explanations of the colon and semi-colon that 
have yet appeared, can serve as a guide for their 
use. With the exception of compositors, who learn 
punctuation like a trade, very few have a just con- 
ception of their proper stations, for gentlemen of 
liberal education but rarely exhibit true knowledge of 
the subject. This is plainly seen in their writings, 
wherein they often drag those officious stops most 



PUNCTUATION. 119 

unnecessarily and unmeaningly, merely, as it would 
seem, to shew that they are not ignorant of what 
every spelling-book professes to teach. 

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. 

This essay on punctuation has extended much 
beyond the length that I originally intended. But, 
as I proceeded, its importance grew apace, and I 
found myself compelled to enlarge my prescribed 
limits. Let it not, however, be supposed, that I 
wish to make it an art reducible to fixed and certain 
rules, for, in whatever way I may have expressed 
my thoughts, they are of quite a contrary tendency. 
Without permitting an unmeaning, uncontrolled, 
or dangerous liberty, I have endeavoured to shew, 
that a man of middling capacity may, with a very 
small share of judgment, acquire a knowledge of 
punctuation, equal to all the purposes of ordinary 
composition. It was unknown to the ancients, 
whose writings are the standards of correctness 
and energy. Some will not believe this, although 
they have the Hebrew without vowels, as a proof 
that we can dispense with things which, when 
known, appear to be indispensable. But vowels 
are a great aid to written language, and so is 
punctuation. All such improvements should, there- 
fore, be cherished, because they widen the road to 
literary knowledge, and enable the bulk of the 
people to travel easily, where only the studious few 
used to pick their steps with difficulty. 

The very nature of Greek and Latin, where the 



120 PUNCTUATION. 

sense was chiefly found by terminations, did not 
require the assistance of punctuation so much as our 
modern pronoun and preposition tongues, and the 
ancients, therefore, dispensed with its use, for we 
have proofs that the thing occurred to them. In 
the British Museum, on the Townley and other 
marbles, we sometimes see a rude punch of the 
graver between words, but neither Greeks nor 
Romans had any taste whatever either in that, or in 
the formation or arrangement of letters. Their 
inscriptions w r ere positively barbarous, for their 
lines on a pannel were never central, and their 
letters are commonly of different sizes even in 
the same word ! A village tombstone engraver 
would now be ashamed to put out of his hands 
such miserable specimens as appeared on their best 
w T orks. 

But, after the fall of Roman power, the puny 
construction of less polished languages required 
some divisional marks, and accordingly we find, in 
manuscript works, written centuries before printing, 
a rude attempt at separation, not simply of sentences, 
but even of members. The invention of printing 
did, certainly, suggest the necessity of something 
like system, and, in about half a century after, 
punctuation aspired to a settled regularity of plan. 
Here are three centuries and half of experience, 
and yet, after all the laws that have been solemnly 
laid down, no two authors of eminence punctuate 
alike, or even according to the same plan through- 
out! Nay they are, always, at variance with 



PUNCTUATION. 121 

themselves, for where can the work of any length 
be found, in which an undeviating system of point- 
ing is steadily and invariably maintained ? Since 
fixed laws cannot be framed, nothing can be expected 
beyond general principles. 

I may be censured — perhaps I may be laughed 
at, for having said so much against the colon and 
semi-colon. But, when I find them to be the 
primeval sources of unprofitable contention — when 
I find that they embarrass rather than assist — when 
I find their functions not decisively but hypotheti- 
cally assigned, and, above all, when I find that the 
wisest heads cannot keep them under wholesome 
subjection, am I not justified in substituting the 
more amenable and conclusive dash, for such blus- 
tering disturbers ? Did the veriest pedant in 
punctuation ever raise a dispute worth notice, 
about the period, or the notes of interrogation and 
exclamation ? Even the use of the comma, which 
so often occurs, is very easily learned, although Mr. 
Murray has obliged us with no fewer than twenty 
rules for its government. I have, therefore, come 
to this conclusion as a general principle, that the 
punctuation of the parts or members of sentences, 
can be accomplished, with propriety and effect, by 
the comma and dash only. This conclusion I have 
proved, and I disclaim the word theory as connected 
with my plan. 



122 SOME GENERAL DIRECTIONS 



CHAPTER EIGHTH. 



Some general Directions respecting Composition. 

I do not intend this as a recapitulation, and you 
must refer to the previous chapters, for various 
directions, which will not be noticed here, What 
follow, are only such as have, since, presented 
themselves to my recollection. 

If you wish to rise above the lowest class of 
writers, you must be very frugal of superlatives and 
strong expressions. Common writers abound in 
horrible, shocking, terrible, uncommon, most extraor- 
dinary, unparalleled, most unwarrantably, tremen- 
dous, dreadful, most outrageous, shameful, scanda- 
lous, most unpardonable, atrocious, and such words 
of great force. They think that this imparts 
peculiar energy to their descriptions, but, while they 
waste their strength on trifles, they are left without 
expressions of sufficient weight for the more impor- 
tant parts, and they are well off if they cannot be 
charged with falsehood, as well as with ignorance. 

Such persons cannot tell us, that a man wantonly 
kicked a dog, without talking of unparalleled 
cruelty. Now look in your dictionary, and you 
will find that this amounts to saying, that the 
cruelty was greater than was ever before known in 
the world. Do not say, when you meet a very 
neat man unshaven, or with dirty shoes, that he 



RESPECTING COMPOSITION. 123 

looked shocking, or that you were shocked. You 
will find that you were only, at the most, surprised, 
but if you saw him in rags, you might be shocked. 
If a man talk more than he ought, though he much 
annoy the company, say his behaviour was rude, or 
highly improper, unless he spoke obscenely, and 
then you may be justified in calling it scandalous. 

I am the more particular on this matter, because 
it is of the highest importance. People in distin- 
guished life, though their literary knowledge may 
be humble enough, generally learn, by experience, 
the value of words, and the consequences that may 
attach to unjustifiable superlatives, or unwarrantably 
strong descriptions. Hence, their letters are more 
moderate in expression, and more cautiously worded, 
than those of the inferior ranks. Kings or ministers 
will not talk of gross violations, or unheard-of ag- 
gressions, unless they are prepared for war. 

As I think that you now understand what I mean, 
I shall sum up this part of my instructions by 
advising you to study, sedulously, a moderation 
and temperance in your words Strong expressions 
upon every occasion, will not only shew your 
literary ignorance, and your unacquaintance with 
well-regulated life, but they may involve you in 
serious troubles, and even in legal prosecutions. 
If you describe a very barbarous murder, your 
feelings may excuse words of exaggerated import, 
but you will, generally, find it the most safe and 
prudent, and the most charitable and christian-like, 
plan, to use the more mild and less acrid expressions. 

h2 



124 SOME GENERAL DIRECTIONS 

When you write on an indifferent subject, you can 
only offend against the symmetrical rules of language, 
but where individuals are concerned, the case is 
different. Remember, that he who is affected well 
considers the force of your words. The most 
ignorant peasant will do this, if you use extra harsh 
expressions. If you, as an agent, complain to his 
master, that he was extremely culpable in coming 
for the commands, at six, instead of five, in the 
morning, he will not overlook " extremely," and 
will tell you, " I owns I done wrong, but I dont 
thinks, howsomever, you ought have said 'twas 
extremely bad, for the most watchfullest might over- 
sleep oneself." 

On the other hand, you must be equally guarded. 
If, upon every petty occasion, strong words are 
reprehensible in one way, they are disgusting in 
another. Unpractised writers deal out praise with 
shameless profusion, and thus make themselves 
the sport of the more sensible and discerning. 
They give us abundance of most judicious, most 
kind, excessively humane, uncommonly good, kind- 
hearted, quintessence of perfection, elegant, beautiful, 
mild, sweet, delightful, charming, fine, and every 
thing that can mark encomium high. This pro- 
pensity betrays its folly in conversation also, for 
with those indiscriminate praisers, a girl is beautiful, 
and so is boiled mutton at dinner — soup is elegant, 
a pig's face charming, and a cod's head delightful. 
Let me entreat that you be moderate and regulated 
in your words. Such grotesque efforts to eulogise, 



RESPECTING COMPOSITION. 125 

are but a pantomime for men of education, and plain 
people regard them as only palaver. 

Crabbe's Synonymes will give you important 
information upon the proper signification and use 
of words. But you must read his book without any 
alarm about the difficulty of always observing his 
rules, for no man can do that. By occasional reference, 
you will derive valuable instruction, but it is not 
from seeing a shade of difference between such 
words as amusing and entertaining. Look to learn 
and teach, and lie and lay, which you so often 
confound, and such others as you may suspect that 
you mis-conceive or mis-apply. 

Never multiply negatives needlessly, as in this 
instance : — 

Having gone so far in their daring course, the robbers 
did not think it safe not to proceed farther. Fam. 
Liby. His. of the Jews, Vol. 2, p. 388. 

Better thus, the robbers thought it unsafe not to 
proceed farther. Yet this is a very simple example 
compared to what one sometimes meets, where it is 
necessary to pause, in order to ascertain whether 
the writer means an affirmation or negation. Some 
authors think that such puzzling composition shews 
their skill, but their readers look on it as silliness. 

Avoid jingling. This is a great blemish, and 
should be carefully eschewed. It is disagreeable 
to the reader, and it implies either negligence or 
ignorance in the writer, either of which charges 
are unpleasant. Suppose I wrote disagreeable instead 
of unpleasant, or avoided instead of escheived, you 



126 SOME GENERAL DIRECTIONS 

would immediately perceive something unpleasing 
to the ear, on account of the proximity of similar 
words. But this requires no little caution. Never 
work yourself up to any thing like a horror of this 
kind of jingling — if you do, you will, inevitablj r , 
fall into gross errors and false representations. Should 
you be at a loss for a second word of nearly equal 
signification, set down the first again, without hesi- 
tation, for sound or appearance is nothing in com- 
parison to accuracy. In Mr. Locke's Essay on 
Human Understanding, he mentions ideas perhaps 
a thousand times, yet, amongst all the celebrated 
men who combated his doctrines, did any ever 
dream of charging this as a fault ? 

However, you should not say, I cannot describe 
his humorous style of description, nor, It now only 
remains for me, to notice the remainder of your 
letter, nor, I dreamed a dream, nor, at that hour, our 
friends departed. There are times, places, and 
allowances, for all things. On business you may 
write, I received your receipt. You could not be 
directly censured for saying, Though, as a brave 
man, I admired his manly conduct, yet it teas a little 
too fierce. The word manly, immediately giving 
the idea of courageous, does not seem to play upon 
man, but still we feel that there is a certain inele- 
gance in the sentence. 

Jingling is not, strictly speaking, what I have 
described. It is the use of words that rhyme to 
each other, which is a capital defect in prose, and I 
have only employed the term for my own conveni- 



RESPECTING COMPOSITION. 127 

ence, to bring the two faults under one denomina- 
tion. 

You must take care not to couch your expressions 
in this way. He was very rigid in his commands, 
though he gave them in rather a frigid manner. 
The ear is offended by rigid and frigid — the last 
should be replaced by cold. If you find yourself 
compelled to use jinglers, remove them as far as 
possible asunder. Nor must you imagine, that 
those rhymers which sound alike, though differently 
spelled and applied, are excusable — they are the 
worst of all, because they pun and jingle, at the 
same time. John being bred up to no tirade whatever 
found himself at his father and mother's death, 
totally unable to earn his bread. Here, notwith- 
standing the distance between bred and bread, we 
are more displeased than if the meaning of both 
were alike, because there seems to be an affectation, 
however undesigned, of sorry punning. It is like 
saying, The Knight went out on a cold night, or, 
He seized his prey and then he went to pray. All 
those kinds of jingling can, by ordinary attention, 
be easily escaped, and you must shun them, if you 
wish to be above the herd of grovelling writers. 

The grand object, and indeed the perfection of 
writing is, to make it quite clear to the reader, 
without giving him any unnecessary trouble. With 
this view, avoid the former, or the latter, for, if they 
do not compel him to look back, his hearers, who 
have not the book, are always in an uncertainty by 
those dissatisfactory expressions. Doctor Johnson 



128 SOME GENERAL DIRECTIONS 

had a particular aversion to them, and his opinion 
ought to carry weight, if mine have none. I just 
now read in an old Irish paper, " Saturday sennight 
W. B. — — , Esq. of Lisnakill, was fired at by an 
assassin, while the former gentleman was writing at 
his window. The ball grazed his head." So then 
the assassin was a gentleman too ! You see what 
comes from affecting to write neat. 

For the same reason, avoid this and that, in the 
way which shall be presently explained. Many 
writers, and some of eminence too, are very fond of 
using those words, precisely for the same purpose as 
the forme?* and the latter, but they are much more 
objectionable. For, if the former and the latter give 
us some trouble, they, at least, occasion no doubt 
when time is not an object, because they cannot, by 
the most ignorant, be wrongly applied — they al- 
ways mean, the first and the last person or thing 
previously mentioned. But this and that are by no 
means so positive. Though the " rule " is, that this 
relates to the last or nearest, and that to the first or 
farthest, yet all writers do not observe this law, and 
I have, often, been completely at a stand to guess 
what was actually meant, when the context was not 
sufficiently obvious. 

Desirous of knowing what Mr. Murray says on 
this point, I found it, after a long hunt, in his gram* 
mar, for he mentions nothing of it in his dissertation 
on composition, where I naturally looked for an 
observation : — 

This indicates the latter or last mentioned; that, 



RESPECTING COMPOSITION. 129 

the former or first mentioned : as, " Both wealth and 
poverty are temptations ; that, tends to excite pride, 
this, discontent." 

Now, we often see this first and that next, and so 
the quotation would then read or imply, poverty 
tends to excite discontent, wealth, pride, instead of 
wealth tends to excite pride, poverty, discontent, as 
it now does. To what childish foolery we descend, 
in attempting refinement upon stubborn plainness ! 
As well might we think of keeping high roads like 
the walks in a pleasure ground. 

Why not repeat the words pride and. poverty ? I 
am no advocate for avoidable repetitions, but, here, 
I think they would have peculiar beauty and energy. 
But, if there be an objection, the first and the other 
would be substitutes, much more clear, and cer- 
tainly as elegant. 

Here and there are equally objectionable. Who 
is obliged to keep whimsical rules in his head, that 
have nothing to do with grammar, and serve only 
to retard that clearness of comprehension, which is 
the grand object of composition ? You will see, in 
this example, what I mean by those heres and 
theres : — 

Bacon and Locke were two very great men, and their 
principal works, the " Organon," and the " Human Un- 
derstanding," evince the most profound knowledge : 
here, we see philosophy teaching us the real power of 
our conceptions ; there, the means by which such 
information can be developed. 

I may now, indeed, fairly ask you, which is 
which ? You will, probably take the here for the 

H 3 



130 SOME GENERAL DIRECTIONS 

former, and the there for the latter, but you must 
now reverse their places, if you want to come at the 
sense, for it seems that they come under the same 
11 rule " as this and that. As I hope that it is un- 
necessary to expend any more time on those ab- 
surdities, I shall proceed to examine the third, for 
there is yet one more. 

Down to the very present day, our grammarians 
are praising extravagantly, as a most happy instance 
of energetic and beautiful composition, the passage 
in Pope's preface to his Homer, which commences 
thus : — 

Homer was the greater genius ; Virgil the better 
artist : in the one, we most admire the man ; in the 
other, the work. 

Now this is more ridiculous by far than the two al- 
ready noticed. There is, here, not even any thing 
like a gleam of sense for a guide. We may suppose 
the things farthest to be that and there, but the one 
has no visible or possible right — no claim direct or 
indirect, to the place assigned it by our worthy bye- 
law makers. Virgil may be the one as well as Ho- 
mer, and Homer the other. See how ill this accords 
with their rules for the other anomalies. If this and 
that mean the nearest, we would naturally think 
that the one should imply the same sense, but, if its 
distant character be justified, because we usually 
say one and the other, when speaking of two things, 
then, here is my answer : — 

Smith and Jones were constantly fighting, but Jones 
being the stronger, generally beat the other. 



RESPECTING COMPOSITION. 131 

There is a sentence, the import of which cannot be 
mistaken, nor can the construction be censured, and 
yet the other is Smith who is first. Shall we be 
told that the definite article the gives this extra- 
ordinary power to one, of fixing it as the farthest ? 
Ah ! Gentlemen grammarians, it is vain to defend 
anomalies or absurdities, especially when they render 
sense obscure or doubtful. You will now find that 
in defending the one, you do but evince ignorance of 
the distinction between the cardinal and ordinal 
numbers, and that, according to your principle, w T e 
might say the one and the two, instead of the one and 
the other, 

I have been obliged to dwell longer on this 
subject than may be pleasing to those for whom my 
book is written. The subject is, however, of no 
minor importance. Since the vulgarity, or rather 
the commonness, of the former and the latter has 
been exposed by Doctor Johnson, our grammarians 
and fine writers studiously avoid, and loudly con- 
demn, those expressions. But, becaus4 the Doctor 
used the one and the other, and its two w T orthy com- 
panions, and because no one had, hitherto, pointed 
out their impropriety, they still continue them. A 
notable proof, truly, of their sagacity and good taste. 
Now, I assert 

First. That the one and the other are sheer non- 
sense. 

Secondly. That here and there and this and that, not 
being intelligible without knowing an unauthorised 
convention that is not, in any way, connected with 



132 SOME GENERAL DIRECTIONS 

grammar, are absurd and ridiculous — absurd, be- 
cause they are obscure — ridiculous, because they 
are pure inventions of pedantry that supply no want 
in our language. 

Thirdly. That the former and the latter, however 
they may shew a writer's inability for more agree- 
able description, are intelligible to every one, and 
must, therefore, be preferable to any expressions that 
are not universally and naturally comprehensible. 

Therefore, if you cannot proceed without this 
dissatisfactory mode of explanation, say the former 
and the latter, the first and the other, in the first, 
and in the next, but never the one and the other, 
nor this and that, nor here and there. 

I shall prevent, by anticipation, a mere cavil- 
ling objection that may be made. Where there 
is no distinction understood, one, not the one, and 
the other are allowable : — 

Of those two horses that you sent me, I shall find it 
difficult to make a choice, for one does not appear to 
be better than the other. 

John and Tom are like twins — I never can distin- 
guish one from the other. 

So, we may use here and there conjoined, as, " We 
find, here and there, some errors," because this is 
only saying, that there are errors occasionally found 
— but surely, I need not waste your time in noticing 
such special pleading exceptions. 

The admirers of those turns ought to be obliged 
to me for the following, which I offer them as a 



RESPECTING COMPOSITION. 133 

beautiful concentration of their favorites — it is, 
indeed, a height of sublimity in composition which 
1 thought I could not ascend, but no one knows 
what he can do until he tries his powers. I have 
punctuated it according to the rules of those who 
write such sentences : — 

Tom and John evinced widely different dispositions. 
Tom loved his book ; John idle sports : the one, was a 
treasure in the family ; the other, a nuisance : that, 
was amiable; this, distressing: here we are repulsed 
by irreligion and disobedience ; there, cheered by 
piety and filial duty : the former, promoted his own 
fortune ; the latter, his ruin : in fine, the first was 
honored in life and death ; the other, despised in both. 

Think well, now, on all that I have said respecting 
prolixity and long-windedness. Remember that 
pointed anecdote so w r ell known, of one who, in 
correspondence with his friend, began, " I have not 
time to w r rite a short letter, and must, therefore, 
trouble you with a long one." The meaning is, that 
it is harder to put our thoughts into a small, than a 
large, space. Any blockhead capable of forming 
letters, can cover a sheet of paper, in detailing what 
might be reduced to a few lines. 

Observe, I say again, to mark all your sentences 
with a period at the end, and to commence them by 
a capital letter. To this you must pay particular 
attention, if you wish your writing to be understood 
without difficulty. The finest penmanship will, 
otherwise, avail but little. 



134 DIRECTIONS TO WRITE 



CHAPTER NINTH. 



Directions to write for Printers, 



You must not cover both sides of the paper, as in 
ordinary correspondence. It is very troublesome to 
the compositor, and will prove disadvantageous to 
yourself. For, if you write to a newspaper or other 
periodical, where payment is not required, this alone 
may cause the rejection of your communication, and, 
in case of publishing a work, it will considerably 
increase your expense. 

Cut the paper into slips of any convenient size — 
say that of an octavo or quarto volume. Write on 
one side only, and number each at the bottom. You 
may, afterwards, connect them with a string, either 
at the top or sides, as may best suit your purpose. 

If you think, notwithstanding all my explanations, 
that you cannot depend on your own punctuation, 
you will act wisely in not insisting on its being 
followed. Leave that to the compositor, and he will 
correct your errors, and preserve more consistency 
and uniformity throughout. But you must observe 
my directions, to commence each sentence with a 
capital letter, and finish with a period — otherwise, 
your manuscript will be called " bad copy," and 
there will be an extra charge for loss of time, just 
the same as for a bad hand- writing. 






FOR PRINTERS. 135 

Unless you spell very accurately, leave the ortho- 
graphy, also, to the compositor. 

Write all the terms of trade or science, proper 
names, foreign words, or those not in common use, ■ 
particularly plain, by which you will escape some 
vexation, and extra charges for correction. Observe, 
in such cases, to make every / and t very plain, and 
that it shall not appear doubtful if an n be a u, or a 
w an m. Though you may hear to the contrary, 
give me leave to tell you, that our compositors are 
only obliged to know plain English. If, for civil, I 
write civit, for always, atways y for author, anther, 
for common common — these they will spell right, but 
they are not supposed to know scarce or unusual, 
technical or foreign, words. 

Draw one line underneath every word that you 
intend for italics — two lines for small, and three for 
large, capitals. But be very sparing of their use. 
Keep in mind, that they are like superlatives, whose 
force will weaken in proportion to their frequency. 

If you wish to make two or more paragraphs out 
of one that you think too long, place, at the end of 
the sentence where you wish the division, two 
crotchets, back to back, thus, ] [ All printers know 
this mark so well, that they will make the new pa- 
ragraph, without any other explanation or direc- 
tion. 

Avoid notes at the bottom of pages, though they 
are used by men of the greatest erudition. While 
they enhance the printing expenses, they are always 
irksome to the reader, because they unseasonably 



136 DIRECTIONS TO WRITE 

distract his attention. If explanations, not suited 
to the body of the work 7 occur, reserve them for the 
end, where you may put them altogether, and with- 
out extra charge. For observe, that nothing which 
is absolutely necessary, ought to be put in notes. 
They should be rather of a satisfactory than of an 
indispensable nature. Some writers carry this noting 
to a ridiculous extent, as, An author of eminence* 
says — and then we look down and see *Newton at 
the bottom like a fallen star. Since the name is 
given, no reader can conceive, why it should not be 
inserted after eminence. I have often wished that 
printers would charge so high for such aberrations, 
that none but men of fortune could meddle with 
them. We should, then, but rarely see single 
names standing at the foot of a page, or that intoler- 
able nuisance, more notes than text. 

I must again draw your attention to the necessity 
of writing plain. There would be no occasion to 
say a word on this point, if you knew as well as I 
do, the torments that gentlemen inflict on them- 
selves by their wretched scrawls. They can have 
nothing to do with a printing office, without com- 
plaints of errors, which often make them ridiculous, 
and give them great vexation. But I know that, so 
far from this being the fault of the compositors, 
they take more pains than they ought, to decypher 
such hen-scratching writing. Though practice en- 
ables them to guess out bad manuscript with a more 
than ordinary readiness, they may be often seen 
handing about, from one to another, the illegible 



FOR PRINTERS. 137 

stuff of a peerless peer or an M.P., in the hope that, 
by chance, one might light upon the meaning of 
some word that defied interpretation by the context. 
Yet some of those dignified scribblers will affect a 
knowledge of punctuation too, and will bluster and 
prate about their senseless stops not being followed, 
although the compositor altered them only through 
ill-bestowed compassion for the writer, or lest ig- 
norance might be imputed to himself. They will 
also, forsooth, introduce foreign scraps into their 
unintelligible English, but, for this, the compositor 
has a help in books wherein the usual quotations of 
empty-headed linguists are ready cut and dry in 
alphabetical order, and, if he can only make out the 
first word or two, he is almost certain of finding 
them in the list. 

Of all foolborn notions of high-breeding, illegible 
writing is the most ludicrous. We may write a 
perfectly genteel and plain hand, without the formal 
cut of the clerk or school -master, but, whatever we 
may do in private concerns or correspondence, we 
should not make laughing-stocks or merry-andrews 
of ourselves, by going to the printing office with our 
gentlemanly scrawls. 

Surround with a line every thing that you do not 
intend to be printed. For want of this necessary 
precaution, strange observations sometimes appear 
that much annoy the writer. It is folly to talk of 
" the stupidity of the printer." Omissions are 
serious matters in his business, and he does it well 
if he leaves out nothing that might, by possibility, 



138 DIRECTIONS TO WRITE FOR PRINTERS. 

be designed for insertion. You may be certain, 
however, that he will not meddle with any encircled 
words, further than to read them for his direction. 

Lastly, if you desire your name to appear, you 
may sign it in your customary manner, but write it 
a second time, very plain, to spare the compositor 
any trouble in giving you a new baptism. It is no 
part of his business to decypher hieroglyphics. 



I shall now let you into a little of the technicali- 
ties of printing, as I am sure that such information 
will be acceptable. Compositors are those who 
arrange the types. Their work is called composing 
or setting, and whatever they set from, whether 
print or manuscript, is named copy. When finished, 
pressmen, not printers as they are commonly called, 
transmit the impression to paper, by a mechanical 
process not necessary to be described. A printer 
is, properly speaking, he who superintends or under- 
takes the entire management, and this is the reason 
that the word is often applied in a very extensive 
sense — every fault or excellency is said to be the 
printer's. As the best compositors are liable to 
make errors in setting, a printed proof of their 
work is furnished to the reader, commonly called 
11 corrector of the press," who carefully compares it 
with the copy, which is slowly read aloud by a 
reading-hoy, and notes any errors that occur. The 
corrected proof is sent back to the compositor, who 
rectifies the faults marked, but, where time permits, 



ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 139 

the reader generally requires a revise, or second 
proof, for his further security. The types, when 
arranged, are called matter, and when properly 
secured by an iron frame or chase, the whole is then 
a form. A publisher, who was formerly called 
" The bookseller," is the person who gives out or 
sells, any newly printed work, either to the trade 
or to the public. An editor of a newspaper or 
periodical work is at the head of the literary depart- 
ment, and, as he is supposed to know the feelings of 
the proprietor, he writes, rejects and alters what he 
pleases — the editor of a book is one who undertakes 
the revision of another's work, and makes either 
additions, abridgments, or changes that he always 
calls improvements. 



CHAPTER TENTH. 



English Conjugators. 

Preparatory to entering on this subject, I must 
exhibit a table of the persons, to save myself some 
trouble in the subsequent explanations, and enable 
you to understand them the better : — 

Singular. The first person, or personal pronoun 
is 7, the second thou, the third he, she, or it when speak- 
ing of irrational creatures. It has other applications 
also, for which see the Grammars. 

Plural. The first person, or personal pronoun is 
we, the second you, the third they. 



140 ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 

For our present purpose, it is not necessary to 
make any remark on this table, except that the 
second person singular thou being, for a long time 
past, almost confined to the Bible, books of prayer, 
poetry, and the Quakers, it is no use for ordinary 
writing, and is superseded by you, which may be 
considered as the second person in both singular 
and plural. Accordingly, when I speak of the 
second person singular, it must be understood as 
you and not thou, and as it will be often convenient to 
mention the persons, you are to understand that the 
first persons mean I and we, the second you, and 
the third, he, she, it and they. 

We may now begin at once with shall and ivill. 
Their origin being of no importance to you, it 
will suffice to observe, that they are the roots of 
their derivatives should and would, and by remem- 
bering this, you may often avoid misapplications. 
You must know, on a little reflection, that, in the 
first persons, shall implies something of doubt or 
uncertainty, and that will is quite positive and 
determined through all the persons. Keep this in 
view, at least as a general consideration, and you 
will the more easily understand such exceptions, as 
custom or error may have introduced or sanctioned. 

When, in London, you say, I shall go to Amster- 
dam next week, that is proper, because, though you 
are determined to go there, the distance, and the 
casualties of land and sea travelling, are presented. 
It seems too much to say will, and you therefore 
use the less presumptuous shall. By this you mean, 






ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 141 

in effect, God willing, as our more pious grandfathers 
were accustomed to say on those occasions. But, 
if in Fleet Street, you mean to go to the Strand, 
you say ivill, because, though we know that you 
might, in the instant, drop dead or be killed, we 
cannot, always, be keeping minute contingencies in 
view. Accordingly you say, I shall go to Amster- 
dam, and, Til go to the Strand — for, observe that 7/ 
and 'd, are contractions of will and would, and not 
of shall and should. 

Now, after considering this, pray tell me what 
you mean by I think I shall, which you, and 
learned men likewise, so often say ? Is it not a 
kind of double doubting — something like, I think 
of thinking f Does it not, now appear to you more 
correct to say, I think I will? 

I must discuss this further. Exceptions may be 
taken where dying, drowning, falling, and such like, 
are concerned. On those occasions, I will is re- 
pugnant, merely because not habitual, to an English 
car, and I know it will be urged that we should say, 
I think I shall die of this disorder, and that will 
would not be right. Now I contend for the con- 
trary. What is this think but a qualification of 
shall — a word already confessedly doubtful and 
inconclusive ? True it is, that one may say, I 
am now beginning to doubt of my former doubting, 
though no man, who had any taste at all for com- 
position, would so express himself. But while I 
admit it for the advantage of my opponents, I deny 
that, in the present instance, it is any support to 



142 ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 

shall. That I believe I must die of a certain 
disorder with which I am afflicted, is the intended 
meaning, but I shall die is the very same thing, 
without / think. Will is decisive, but only as far 
as human power can go, for something might prevent 
us from doing the most simple act of positive determi- 
nation. Will is, therefore, obviously of a qualificatory 
nature or condition, but shall is not, and, upon this, I 
support my assertion, that in all such expressions 
as, I think, I believe, I fear, that I shall die, shall 
ought, in strictness, to be replaced by will. 

If my personal safety be in danger, and that I 
cry out, Oh ! % assist me ! I'll be killed, I'll be 
drowned, I'll fall, we all know that, in English, 
these are blunders, implying the reverse of what is 
intended — we call for aid, and then we stop it by 
adding, that it is useless. But, Oh ! assist me ! I 
fear I'll be drowned, is a proper expression. 

Some maintain that shall and will are a kind of 
shibboleth, the proper use of which must be acquired 
from infancy, and that their management is beyond 
ordinary explanation. Anomalies ours has, as well as 
all other languages, and to contend against them, 
while they are understood and sanctioned by general 
usage, would be equally foolish as to oppose idiom- 
atical construction. But grammar recognises no 
shibboleths. The proper use of the words in 
question, is as clearly definable as to have or to be, 
but, at present, I can do little more than offer a 
few passing observations, merely for the purpose of 
relieving the young writer from those doubts with 



ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 143 

which, I know, he is embarrassed when he takes 
up his pen, and for encouraging liim to proceed 
with the greater confidence. That my desire is not 
for impertinent innovation, my own writing proves, 
for, in compliance with general custom, I commonly 
use shall where I am satisfied that, in strict propriety, 
it should be will. My object is only to shew, that, 
by erroneous substitution of one for another, such 
conjugating words are, sometimes, improperly used, 
and that occasions occur where they are so obviously 
synonymous, as to render choice a matter of perfect 
indifference. I only desire that the plain truth 
should be told, without u mental reservation," in 
order to confound the pretenders to mystery, but it 
'- would seem that this is not agreeable to our meta- 
physical grammarians. However freely I may have 
given my opinion upon I think I shall, I must not 
be understood as wishing to press its exclusion. I 
only pointed it out as a misuse of shall, and I leave 
time to work a reformation. All notices of long- 
unobserved grammatical mis-constructions are, at 
first, annoying, and do breed strife, but, when anger 
subsides, they are dispassionately examined, and the 
discoverer is treated with courtesy, as I shall be 
hereafter. 

You see that you are constantly infringing what 
you suppose are rules, that none but an Englishman 
can understand or conceive. You say will now, 
upon the very same occasion that you said shall 
only a few minutes before. You do not always, 
when in Fleet street, say Til go to the Strand — 



144 ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 

sometimes you say I shall. For this, I shall not, 
however, quarrel with you, but it is right to remind 
you that, by this vague usage, you admit shall to 
have no particular character in the first persons. 
In like manner, he whose authority you dare not 
question— one to whom you are all submission, 
desires you to do something, and you answer, I 
shall, when you mean to say, 2" will, or, that you 
are so determined upon doing the thing required, 
that he may be certain of its being done. So, a 
minister of state answers the King's command by I 
shall, when the obsequious crown servant means 
to say, Your majesty may consider it as done. He 
might, indeed, with propriety, though perhaps not 
so respectfully, say, it shall be done, because that 
pledges him for the performance of the royal order, 
either by himself or by others. 

When asked a question that seems unnecessary, 
you frequently answer by a will and a shall, as, 
" Will you prosecute John ?" " Will I ! aye, and 
that I shall." Thus, while you mean to give the 
strongest possible assurance of your resolution to 
prosecute John, the true sense of your answer is, 
" I am so unalterably determined to prosecute John, 
that I am amazed at your question, yet I am not 
quite determined to prosecute him." The answer 
should be, Will I ! aye, and that I will. 

Should, would, and ought, have frequently the 
same meaning, according to peculiarity of position, 
or other circumstances. The following sentence 
will exemplify a good deal : — 



KNGL1SII CONJUGATORS. 145 

I should have gone to Spain, but my father would 
not consent. 

We all know, and will take it for granted, that 
the meaning is, I designed, or intended, to go to 
Spain, but my father refused his consent to my 
going thither. 

Now, in this case, we may say, indifferently, I 
would, or I should, but you generally take should, 
because it is more popular, and indeed the repeti- 
tion of would is not agreeable to the ear. But, if 
an emphasis be laid on should, it has then, pre- 
cisely, the same signification as ought. While we 
thus see, that would, should, or ought, do not very 
materially alter the sense of the first member, it is 
worthy of remark, that we cannot put should or 
ought, in place of the would after father, without 
entirely changing the direct and positive meaning. 
Observe this well, because it shews you the folly 
of attempting to give fixed significations to those 
very important words. You see that there are 
times, places, and circumstances, for their particular 
meanings, notwithstanding all we are told to the 
contrary. However, to satisfy those who wish to 
go into minutiae, I shall exhibit the different signi- 
fications, as regard the first member of the sentence 
in question : — 

/ would — I had determined to go 

/ should — I intended to go 

/ should, with emphasis — I ought to have gone 

I ought — My duty was, to have gone. 

We say, indifferently, should, or would you like 

I 



146 ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 

to see Spain ? and you may answer I would, or I 
should, for either signifies yes, and if you add not, 
both mean no. But you generally say should, for 
no reason whatever, except the same partiality that 
you evince for shall. Were it worth investigation, 
however, would appears to have the preference, in 
the simple interrogative sentence, though if some- 
thing conditional follow, should seems better, as, 
" Should you like to see Spain if you could aiford 
the expense ?" But such considerations are only 
mere quibbling of grammatical pedantry, nor should 
I lose one moment upon them, were it not for the 
purpose of proving to you, that there are circum- 
stances where those words are alike as to effect and 
meaning. This is always important when you come 
to write, in order that you may disregard ^the ill- 
contrived, though imposing, schemes of some gram- 
mar-manufacturers, to fix an invariable or exclusive 
sense for such words. 

There is, as simple sentences, no difference what- 
ever, between You should not walk, and You ought 
not to walk, nor yet between Should you walk ? 
and Ought you to walk ? But, though I could walk, 
and I might walk, are synonymous assertions, there 
is a difference in the question forms, Could you 
walk ? and Might you walk ? The first is, Are 
you able to walk ? and the next, Are you per- 
mitted, or have you the right or liberty, to walk ? 
So, I can, or, I may, force him to refund, are 
equal, but differ as questions, for, Can I force him, 
is, Have I the power, and, May I force him, is, 



ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 147 

Am I permitted, does the law allow me, or, have 
I the right — to force him to refund ? 

You will now observe that shall and must have 
often the same signification, when you speak of 
others, or the second or third persons. He shall 
go, and He must go, are alike. Both imply, that 
you will take care that he do go. But J must go, 
means that I am inclined, obliged, or that it is my 
duty, to go. Yet this last sense only, and no other, 
could be inferred if you said, I should, or I ought 
to go. Now this is curious. We see that must 
may give the sense of should or ought, but if they 
be substituted for must we have then a distinct and 
confined meaning to the whole expression. 

The sense of must, is sometimes changed to it is 
necessary, and this even in the second and third 
persons. Suppose I ask, Pray how is this trooper 
to get to Sw r ampfield ? and you answer, " He must 
go on foot, because the path is not fit for a horse," 
you mean only by must, that it is necessary for 
him to go on foot — you care not whether he goes 
or stays. It may appear needless to explain such a 
common thing, which every one knows, but I do it 
to convince you, how r futile it is to give anything 
like an exclusive meaning to the word. 

Though shall has, in the first persons, a generally 
indeterminate character, it is, with propriety, used 
in positive cases, instead of will. In strictness, 
such expressions as these require will, I shall now 
proceed, I shall now explain, I shall not trouble 
you any longer, I shall plainly shew. But, even 

i 2 



148 ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 

when we see that the writer fulfils what he pro- 
mises, and though we must admit his right to 
willy we are more pleased with his diffident, how- 
ever less correct, shall, because its modesty is more 
agreeable. Nay, we even sa}% I shall be much 
obliged by your sending, though it is intended to 
express undoubted obligation or gratitude. The 
shall here elegantly says, I will, as far as I can 

promise, from my own frail nature, be . But 

in common, or what I might call downright cases, 
shall is improper. You should say, If you give me 
the horse, I will pay you forty pounds, though, as 
you have it already explained, you might say, you 
shall be paid forty pounds. Our ear is hurt by 
reading, This shall be found in the next Chapter. 
Every one feels that it ought to be will, because the 
assertion is of too direct and mechanical a nature to 
sanction anv diffidence in the writer. Following 
this up, here are two examples as an exercise for 
the understanding : — ■ 

An examination of this, will be found in the next 
chapter. 

This shall be examined in the next chapter. 

Here are two expressions of precisely the same 
import. They both make an assertion, that some- 
thing will be examined in the next chapter, and 
why could not shall be used in both ? The dis- 
tinction, I admit, seems nice, but it can be ex- 
plained notwithstanding. In the first, we have a 
bona fide promise, that a certain examination will 
be found in the next chapter, and if we do not find 



ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 149 

it there, we conclude that the writer has forgotten 
it. But is not the same bona fide promise in the 
second ? No doubt it is, but then the writer, by 
the change of expression, or rather of construction, 
appears to take something more upon himself. In 
both forms, we know that it is the writer who is to 
be the examiner, but his identity is more marked in 
the second, and it therefore admits of shall ', because 
he seems to say to the reader, " though I promise 
to examine this, perhaps you may not think that it 
deserves to be called an examination." Considera- 
tions like these lie, however, only in the breast of 
the writer, and he might say will as well as shall, 
though, in the first example, shall would be per- 
fectly ridiculous, even in the privileged mouth of a 
genuine Bow-bell-sound-born cockney. 

However I may speak to you, concluding, that 
you are unacquainted with grammar, I know that 
you went through it in learning to read, though 
you did not then, nor do you now, understand it. 
At that time, I mean in your school- days, you read 
of certain little words, " defective verbs," or 
" signs," or " auxiliaries," but which I call 
conjugators, and you may recollect, at least, some- 
thing about them. You will therefore, be sur- 
prised when I tell you, that shall has, sometimes, 
the sense of ought. We shall have fine weather 
after this ?ain, means, We ought to have fine 
weather — that is, It is reasonable to think that 
there will be fine weather, for the shall is only 
your opinion, that there should or ought to be fine 

i 3 



150 ENGLISH CONJUGATORS 

weather. So, as I told you, that i" think I shall 
was improper, you may wonder why I should think 
is right, seeing that shall is the root of should, and 
still more when I shall think, may be used. But 
these apparent discrepancies can be made clear 
enough. 

I should think means, I ought to think or It 
is j air for ?ne to think, and I shall think is only a 
less marked mode of saying I icill think. If you go 
to Petersburgh I shall think you mad — here, think 
is only another word for consider, and you may say 
shall or will, according to your feelings. In pro- 
missory answers, where there is no doubt of power, 
iv ill is more satisfactory, as being more decisive, than 
shall. I shall think of your claim — here, the shall 
is only a may or perhaps, but will assures me that 
my claim is to be taken into consideration. In pro- 
mises where nothing is asked, shall is generally pre- 
ferred, but this has been already explained. 

Should and if are sometimes the same. Should 
his father hear of it, he will be vexed. Put if'm 
place of should, and there will not be a shade of 
difference. For in the present instance, any 
strained conception of a past sense to should, is un- 
worthy of notice, and I take the opportunity to 
compliment Mr. Lennie, for venturing to insert in 
his grammar, some excellent observations on this 
head. Speaking of the " auxiliaries " he says, "the 
precise time is generally determined by the drift or 
scope of the sentence, or rather by the adverb or 
participle that is subjoined or understood, and not 



ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 151 

by these auxiliaries." This is a cruel blow to the 
school-men. It deprives them of a constant source 
of harmless amusement, in displaying a vast fund of 
learning to prove, what no one ever denied— that 
the " auxiliaries/' particularly must and ought, 
" appear" to have, occasionally, a present and past 
time or signification. 

Having already given you an example where 
none of the " signs " can be substituted for would, 
I shall now present should in a similar situation. 
When you say, I should not now know John if I 
saw him, it means, that his features have glided 
out of your recollection, but would gives us to un- 
derstand, that you do not choose to know him. 
This is, indeed, a very important difference, but 
here Englishmen do not make mistakes — it is for the 
benefit of the Scotch and Irish that the remark 
is offered, and since my hand is in, I may as 
well give them another warning, about a blunder 
which is confined to them. They ask, will I, 
instead of shall I, as the English do, and this is a 
great fault. When asked, will I go, will I do this 
or that, it would be a proper answer to ask in turn, 
How can I tell whether you will or no ? It is folly 
to argue that the construction holds good in the 
most refined tongues, and even in German which 
has its sollen or shall. Every language has its own 
peculiarities, and this is, I think, a great beauty in 
English. It invests shall with all the various shades 
of permission or opinion, for, shall I go to the 
meeting ? may mean, according to the station of 



152 ENGLISH COXJUGATORS. 

the person addressed, may I go, is it your wish that 
I go, do you think it right for me to go, to the 
meeting ? But we often use if and should, though 
it is plain tautology, thus, If his father should hear 
of it. Leaving out the should, we have complete 
and grammatical sense, for it is but a disguised 
repetition of if under the name of should — indeed, 
according to Home Tooke, they are here the same, 
for he says that if signifies granted, and certainly 
so does should, when put in its place. Must it not, 
therefore, be a great breach of propriety to say, 
If his father should hear of it ? However, as the 
double contingency is sanctioned by the first writers, 
we cannot object to its use. I have offered my 
remarks only to shew you, w T hat various shapes and 
forms those little important words sometimes assume. 
Here is should precisely the same thing as if, while 
its root shall has no such bearing. Shall his father 
hear of it becomes interrogative, and, since shall 
cannot take the place of if, it seems to make the 
conditional future character somewhat stronger, by 
saying, If his father shall hear of it, he will be 
vexed. 

I shall now proceed to shew, why the term 
co>jl t gators is preferable to " signs," or " aux- 
iliary," or " helping," or "defective, verbs." 
There are, in reality, but three auxiliary verbs in 
our language, that of existence to be, that of posses- 
sion to have, and that of action to do. These are 
truly verbs, because they have not only infinitives 
but active and passive participles. When an 



ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 153 

English verb loses its infinitive, it ceases to be a 
verb, and it ought to take some other title. But 
suppose I admit, to quiet the grammatical " dogs of 
war," that it may be called a defective verb, will 
they insist that words, like some of our con- 
jugators, as must or can, which perhaps never 
had infinitives, should be called verbs ? To me it 
appears of no consequence whether they ever had 
infinitives, for I maintain that will, which has the 
strongest claim, is, as a conjugator, now very different 
from the verb to will, and our grammarians, by 
confounding them, prevent their being clearlv un- 
derstood. 

Mr. Walker gives " Shall, v. def.," and 
il Will, v. a." It is time to lay aside distinctions 
that tend to nothing but misconception. As an 
active verb, will is now so old-fashioned, that it 
may be very fairly considered obsolete. Who uses it at 

the present day ? Who says I will that you or 

I willed, I have or had willed, I shall will, I might 
will, or any of its regular verbal constructions ? 
Should anyone now understand the imperative^'//? 
No. Instead of Will that, we now say Order or 
Command that. It is, indeed, still continued in a 
testamentary sense, nor do I wish to disturb that 
application, but in any other usage, it is only a 
kind of metonymy, for, I would that he may reform 
is nothing more than I wish that he may reform. 

Will has, therefore, virtually, and by common 
consent, laid down its claims as a verb, except for 
testamentary expression, and even there, bequeathed 



154 ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 

and leave have nearly extinguished it. How then 
can we call it an auxiliary verb, when it is, evi- 
dently, but a sort of stronger shall? Take it in its 
undisputed verbal form, and what is the 'result of 
that test ? If I say Itvillmyhouse, it tells nothing, 
though in a sense the most advantageous— we ask 
To whom ? But our three real auxiliaries have no 
such defects. I am a man, or my own cook, I have 
a horse, I do my duty, or my own business, are ex- 
pressions that stand alone and unsupported. The 
auxiliaries themselves, however, can be only par- 
tially varied or inflected without the conjugators, 
which are, to all intents and purposes, the same as 
the different terminations in Latin and other lan- 
guages. I therefore respectfully submit, that the 
name, conjugators, which I have adopted, be 
henceforth their designation. It removes much dis- 
tracting ambiguity, tells, at once, the parts that they 
have to play in the grammatical drama, gives the 
pupil an instantaneous conception of their duties, 
and saves a great deal of very unprofitable discussion. 
The inflection of English verbs is effected by the 
three auxiliaries mentioned, to be, to have and to do, 
and ten words which are properly our conjugators : — 

Root. Derivative. 

Will and would. 

Shall and should. 

May and might. 

Can and could. 

Must 

Ought. 



ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 155 

Thus is the whole business of English conjugation 
managed. If is only a word generally selected, to 
explain subjunctive or conditional construction, for 
others, as lest, though, unless, and even whether, or 
except, would answer the purpose. The same may 
be said of let, for, though not a conjunction, it no 
more belongs to the imperative, than if does to the 
subjunctive mood. Let is a perfect verb of itself, 
and has a meaning similar to permit, though formerly 
it implied the opposite, to hinder, as where Hamlet 
exclaims, " I'll make a ghost of him that lets me." 
Mr. Lennie has, very judiciously, excluded it from 
the imperative, and gives only the second person, 
singular and plural. He also evinces good judgment 
in rejecting so many tenses from the subjunctive, 
and referring them to the indicative, mood, but he 
ought to have given the past or imperfect of the 
passive thus, Were I loved, or if I were loved, 
and so on through the persons. That would shew 
the true dignity of the mood, to which it is entitled, 
when not absolutely depending upon if or any other 
conjunction. We see that even the present tense 
can work by itself, for, instead of If I be loved, we 
can say, Be I, or any of the other persons, loved. 
No one who understands English, could mistake 
the sense of this, Be I loved, or be I not, I will 
court the lady. There can be no grammatical ob- 
jection — the only charge is, that it appears quaint 
or unfashionable, like our discarded hath. All those 
subjunctive or imperative examples that require 
conjunctions or extraneous verbs are, therefore, no- 



156 ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 

tiling more than ordinarily constructed sentences, and 
do not properly belong to English conjugation. 

But grammarians may be alarmed at this word 
conjugator, lest it might put them under the neces- 
sity of admitting a new part of speech. There is 
no reasonable ground for any fear in this respect. 
What are the verbal terminations in other languages 
but conjugators ? As well might one say, that our 
genitive case is a part of speech. We may still keep 
sacred the tuneful Nine, without the slightest dan- 
ger of misleading the youthful pupil : — 

Q. What are conjugators ? 

A. They are certain words that were, in ancient 
times, verbs, but which, from the difficulty of managing 
them in that manner, were insensibly stripped of their 
verbal functions, and now only serve for conjugation, 
as change of termination in other languages. 

Q. How many conjugators are there ? 

A. Ten. Here name them. 

Q. To what part of speech do they belong ? 

A. As they were formerly verbs, we may still con- 
sider them as belonging to the fifth, but in parsing we 
call them conjugators, as more plainly denoting their 
present use. 

So far, to quiet the fears of innovation in grammar 
systems, and questions like the following might 
safely elucidate times : 

Q. Are the derivatives always the past times of their 
roots ? 

A. Not now, though they formerly were, for the 
different times of them, as well as of their roots, are 
chiefly denoted by the words that precede or follow. 



ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 157 

Q. Is this the reason that must and ought, which 
have no derivatives, appear occasionally in different 
times ? 

A. Yes. 

The following will explain some of the uses of our 
conjugators, for it would be very difficult to com- 
prise them all, in any exhibition of examples : — 

I can do it, and I think I will— so could John if 
he would but take courage, though I should not like 
to urge him, because his father might be displeased. 
We shall find, however, that John may lawfully do 
it, but he must be responsible himself, for he ought to 
consult his father. 

Having mentioned the verb to love, of which our 
grammar-writers are so fond, I cannot forbear say- 
ing a word upon the subject. As it is of the 
greatest importance that things should, as nearly as 
possible, have their right names and functions, 
especially when we undertake instruction, this word 
is a most unfortunate selection, and I am certain that 
it much retards the improvement of the pupil. But 
grammarians too often work mechanically —not 
intellectually. Would they but mentally consider 
this word through all its moods and tenses, its 
inefficiency, nay its absurdity, as an explicator, 
must be manifest. 

Every school-child has a notion of what love is, 
and can understand it even beyond the sense of 
esteem. Love cannot be forced, for though we 
may figuratively say, I will force you to love me, it 

K 



158 ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 

only means that by a certain line of conduct, I 
hope to inspire you with love, or with estimation, 
of me. What idea, then, can the pupil have of the 
regular march or power of verbs, by the I will bes, 
I will have beens, shall haves, shall have beens, and 
other explicative constructions of to love f Substi- 
tute to carry, or even to court, and see how clear 
every variation of tense appears. Mr. Murray has, 
in the first future tense of the subjunctive mood, 
* If I shall or will be loved." Only think of If I 
will be loved ! This is really shibbolethical, and I 
give it up at once. 

If to love be an objectionable expounder in 
English, how much worse in Latin, where the pupil 
finds amaturus, about to love ! Can he conceive it 
possible to be about to love ! So then be is taught 
to believe that he may very properly say, I am 
about or going, to love or to esteem such-a-one, 
just as if he were about to walk, to fish or to hunt. 
True it is that he finds amaturus, I think, in 
Juvenal, but it is only used sarcastically, on asking 
an old woman who is evincing, what we call, young 
notions, when she should be thinking of the grave, 
Are you about to love ! But the Latin, with all its 
advantages of inversion and inflexion, must yield to 
the English in copiousness. It had no single word 
to represent our verb to court, and amare often 
stood for that, as well as to love, and to make love, 
but of this the pupil is told nothing. 

No verb should, in a grammar, be given as a 
primary example of conjugation, unless one that 



ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 159 

will be consistent throughout. For this reason, dine 
is not proper, because the beginner should not be 
suffered even for a moment to think, that I am 
dined is allowable. Ignorant people sometimes say, 
he was dined and often breakfasted too, at John's 
expense, though it is remarkable that they never 
use supped in this way. But I shall be told, that 
active and neuter verbs are always separately 
explained. Is it not, however, very easy to give, 
at first, such a one as will bear all possible transi- 
tions, and reserve distinctions until the whole pro- 
cess of conjugation be understood ? Nor should 
words that give a different passive sense be adopted, 
as succeed, A boy will always consider this as 
prosper, yet when he comes to / am succeeded, it 
then, if it have any meaning, assumes the character 
of succession, and has no relation to prosperity or 
success, with which he set out to conjugate. 
Neither should a w r ord like disperse be introduced, 
because, in the passive, it is of use for the plural 
persons only. I am dispersed is nonsense, like / 
am succeeded, though we are dispersed is good, and 
therefore, all such verbs should be excluded from 
first explanations. To instruct young persons as 
rationally as possible, upon all occasions, instead of 
suffering them to go on like mere parrots, is of more 
consequence than is generally imagined. 

I was about to omit these observations, but I let 
them stand, when I saw that they must be service- 
able to every reflecting mind, with or without a 
knowledge of grammar. However, you may con- 

k 2 



160 ENGLISH CONJUGATOKS. 

sider them only as a digression, and we shall now 
proceed to our original topic. 

Those little conjugating words which I have 
undertaken to explain, are of the greatest import- 
ance to our language. But, though otherwise easy 
enough, when you write, you occasionally find some 
embarrassment or uncertainty about their proper 
use, and you then, naturally enough, refer to a 
grammar. There you find awkward attempts to fix 
their particular and exclusive functions — awkward, 
it is true, yet sufficiently dogmatical, to perplex and 
alarm an unsophisticated head. Not a word about 
their having, sometimes, the same meaning. No. 
That, the grammar-writers dare not mention, even 
if it were their wish. They must feel and know it 
as well as I, but they are either unwilling to grapple 
with the cherished precept, or they fear that their 
books would be thrown out of the schools. They 
tell us, that they are imperfect verbs, which by some 
unknown misfortune, have lost their moods, conju- 
gations and tenses, and that they have now only a 
kind of imperfectly present and past sense, though 
they were formerly very respectable — that must and 
ought came off worse than the others, being con- 
demned to hobble, as well as they can, in a sort of 
single-double time. They then give some examples 
of their separate duties, and there they leave the 
humble inquirer, who comes for information of a 
different character. 

I must do Mr. Lennie justice, by remarking 
that he says, " Should is sometimes used instead of 



ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 161 

ought." But there he stops short — further he 
would not venture, thinking, perhaps, that he had 
said as much as was prudent. " Sometimes !" So 
then Mr. Lennie, you do admit that should is some- 
times used instead of ought ! Now what do you think 
of substituting may be always for sometimes? Pray 
tell us when " should " cannot be used instead of 
" ought?" for, monstrous and shocking as it may 
appear, I am prepared to prove, that should can 
always supply ought, though ought cannot always 
supply should. 

I never was so forcibly struck with the absurdity 
— I had almost said, the cruelty, of our ought expo- 
sitions, than in looking at them in a grammar for 
teaching English to the French. There, examples 
for ought were given, which would do equally well 
for should, and thus integrity was absolutely sacri- 
ficed, merely to cover our own ignorance of ought. 
Something was necessary to be done with it, and so 
the poor foreigner was duped by an explanation that 
only added to his difficulties. In teaching ourselves, 
it is not so injurious, because our ears hourly shew 
us the folly of such grammar definitions, but it is 
cruel to mock the confiding stranger by untenable 
directions. Why not tell him plainly, that, in 
endeavouring to extricate ourselves from the con- 
fusion of a parcel of German " auxiliaries," we gave 
the sense of duty to should, without recollecting 
ought, and that it was found convenient to let both 
stand ? 

Ought is, however, a very beautiful conjugate in 



162 ENGLISH CONJUGATORS* 

our language. It relieves the monotony of the 
frequent shoulds that must, otherwise, be introduced, 
where sentences are formed of different obligatory 
expressions. Besides, there are occasions where it 
appears to be more pointed than should, though it 
have really no more intrinsic value. 

The following is given for curiosity, to shew 
what strange constructions of our conjugators used 
to be sanctioned. It is taken from Dacre's trans- 
.lation of MachiavePs Prince, Chap. 7. London, 
Charles Harper, 1674: — 

And this he (Francis, Duke of Milan) was able to 
have effected, that if he could not have made him Pope 
whom he would, he could have hindered him that he 
would not should be Pope. 

Writing compels every man to think, and there- 
fore, when Englishmen take up the pen, keeping in 
mind that I always allude to those of humble edu- 
cation, they discover the fallacy of that absurd and 
mischievous assertion, that they all know intuitively, 
the proper use of shall and will, and the other 
conjugators. But as I observed that the French and 
others, who have no shall in their own language, 
easily learn the German sollen, it is fair that we 
bear not too hard upon ourselves. Compared to the 
German people, we are but children in the use of 
shall. They had it, originally, in their language, 
while it is only lately that we began to understand 
it at all, or rather to make a decent attempt at fixing 
its sense. We know that Chaucer used it as we do 



ENGLISH CONJUGATORS. 1 63 

the verb to owe, not much more than four hundred 
years since, and I have observed that Lord Bacon, 
though little above two centuries, brings it some- 
times into his writings, not exactly conformable to 
the usages of the present day. It has been justly 
observed, that a hundred years in government is 
but as ten in man's ordinary life, and so it is with 
languages. English is the youngest of all. We 
received a crowd of those auxiliary verbs, from 
different nations who had been long accustomed to 
their use, and we knew not how to manage them. 
We got some that seemed to be the same as others 
— we got, for instance, shall and besides owe, and 
it may be said that we got a touch of the Swedish 
shall mixed up with the German sollen and mussen. 
Floundering on in this perplexity, we insensibly 
stripped them of their verbal functions, and reduced 
them to the state of mere conjugators. This was 
the first step towards rendering them manageable, 
and distinguishing our language by a remarkable, 
and I think a very beautiful, peculiarity of verbal 
inflexion. 

But a great deal yet remains to be done. We 
have, it is true, effected much in fixing the functions 
of our conjugators, and shall is certainly that which 
appears to be the most undefinable. That it should 
be so is a serious reproach to the judgment of 
Englishmen, and, instead of hugging each other in 
the childish notion that they only can understand it, 
they do but expose themselves to the painful charge 
of being in the infancy of their language. Besides, 



164 SYNONYMOUS WORDS. 

it could it be easily proved that they do not under- 
stand it, first, because any grammatical construction 
that is understood, can be explained, and next, 
because, while believing in the doctrine of fixedness, 
they sometimes use shall for will and will for shall, 
with precisely the same views and feelings. Amongst 
English writers, there are constantly found differ- 
ences in the use and application of those words, 
and every one of discernment can perceive, in 
conversation with a well educated Englishman, 
that he has more wills and woulds, and less of those 
eternal shalls and sliants with which the lower orders 
are inoculated. Still w r e are told, that an English- 
man sucks in with his first milk, the genuine and 
pure knowledge of shall and will! 



CHAPTER ELEVENTH. 



Synonymous Words. 

Experience has convinced me, that plain expla- 
nation cannot be injurious to instruction. I make 
the remark, because I know, that many otherwise 
sensible and learned men conceal the truth, through 
a fear that too much knowledge may divert the 
pupil from a proper steadiness to the observance 
of rules. They fear, that any thing like a latitude 
or discretion w 7 ill produce heedlessness, and, under 
this impression, they give directions that positively 
mislead, fill the mind with wrong notions, and 



SYNONYMOUS WORDS. 165 

throw a most prejudicial taint of doubt and error 
upon the future reasonings of the learner. 

Satisfied I am, and I think I ever must be, 
that this is a very erroneous doctrine. Far be it 
from me to support, pragmatically, inconvenient 
principles merely because they may be abstractedly 
right. Severe philosophy says, " if truth be good, 
it should be spoken at all times," but De Stael, 
though a woman, has, in my opinion, clearly proved, 
that by adhering to such an " axiom," we may 
shock the fairest notions of humanity and virtue. 
A man who sets up lor rigid integrity, should never 
hesitate an instant about truth, where himself is 
singly concerned — it is only where others are 
involved, that it is lawful to consider, whether his 
truth-telling may injure the virtuous and the in- 
nocent. In that consists, what I would call the 
true nobility of this part of philosophy. 

After these observations, which I deem necessary 
as an anticipation of artful objections, we may now 
proceed. In the last chapter I think I have 
shewn, that where our conjugators have different 
meanings, and where another word has sometimes 
effectively, the same import, it is foolish and inju- 
rious to fix an exclusive sense or place for one, or, 
in plainer language, to conceal the truth. What 
danger could possibly arise from honestly saying, 
that shall and should are often so synonymous to will 
and would, that it is indifferent which be selected ? 
Or that shall and must, may and can, could and 
might with ought and should, are frequently equal 

k3 



166 SYNONYMOUS WORDS. 

to each other ? Would not this be better than to 
tell the pupil, what he finds to be false in practice 
— even in the practice of his teacher ? All young 
people have a high opinion of their masters, and 
when they perceive strange incongruities between 
rules and performance, they are filled with doubts 
that cloud the understanding, and much retard 
improvement. 

Let us now argue amicably, and hear the other side. 
We shall take should and ought for a general illus- 
tration. The grammarian says, u I know that 
should can supply ought, but it would not be 
advisable to tell that to a boy, lest he make too wild 
a use of should. We rather make him think that 
ought has its own exclusive sense, particularly as 
there are occasions where it is peculiarly expressive, 
and far superior to should" In answering this, I 
must first observe, that grammars, however designed 
for youth, are read also in mature age, and any 
imprudent or ill-judged concealment, equally ope- 
rates against the adult. But I assert, that it does 
not require much judgment to explain, upon all 
grammatical occasions, with perfect safety. Could 
there be any possible danger in something like the 
following ? 

The assertion may, perhaps, be hazarded, that should 
can always supply ought, though it is unnecessary to 
remark, that ought cannot always supply should. It 
appears, however, that ought seems better upon many 
occasions, particularly when a strong force of duty is 
to be expressed. Undoubtedly one may say, We 



SYNONYMOUS WORDS. 167 

should love our neighbour as ourselves, but ought to gives 
greater weight and is therefore preferable. By atten- 
tion to those distinctions, you will produce the more 
elegant English, and shew yourself better informed 
than students who are less observant. Besides, ought 
frequently saves disagreeable repetitions of should, 
as, You ought to pay John, for you should recollect, that 
he ought not to suffer for his confidence, though I admit 
that he should have demanded security." 

Now, I ask would not this be better, both for 
young and old, than any mysterious concealment ? 
By such an explanation, the learner would proceed 
with increased alacrity, and be enabled to devote the 
time that he loses in fruitless considerations, to the 
exercise of his understanding, and to the acquire- 
ment of new information. It is asserted that no two 
words can have precisely the same signification, and 
that a new one never finds its way into a language, 
except through a necessity of expressing a minute 
shade of meaning that was before wanted. Now 
this is a most palpable absurdity. This is what 
serves to keep up the puzzling system — to deter the 
humble writer from wielding his pen, and to make 
him look with increased admiration upon the great 
men who know all those marvellous distinctions. 

As to other words not having the same mean- 
ing, it would be easy to adduce numerous instances 
to the contrary. Some will, always, have exactly 
the same as others, while some will only exercise 
this privilege, just like our conjugators, on particu- 
lar occasions. We can see no difference between 
heavy and weighty. In a ponderal sense, they are 



168 SYNONYMOUS WORDS. 

perfectly alike. We may say, a heavy man, or a 
weighty man, but if we allude to his being dull, 
weighty is thrown out, and heavy comes in for its 
exclusive application. Such instances might be mul- 
tiplied, so as to fill a folio volume. 

There is no difference whatsoever between cecity 
and blindness, to objurgate and to chide, opacity 
and cloudiness, mendacity and lying, inimical and 
hostile, to congregate and to assemble, mendicant and 
beggar, orifice and opening, paucity and fewness, 
perilous and dangerous, loquacious and talkative, 
and it is not easy, even from our dictionaries, to 
make out any particular difference in viscid, viscous, 
glutinous and clammy. These, and many hundreds 
besides, have found a place, not through any want 
or necessity, but because of their greater elegance 
or purer blood, and because a choice of words 
enriches a language. Pauper, geography, manoeuvre, 
encyclopedia, polygamy, synecdoche, and others 
innumerable, are necessary, because they save us 
additional words in description, and rescue our 
speech from the charge of poverty and meanness. 
Yet we still require some helps. Nothing is, perhaps, 
more desirable than a substitute for disagreeable and 
unpleasant, when applied to express dissatisfaction. 
Do our best, and we cannot keep flavour or taste 
out of view. About fifty years since annoying 
offered its services, and was much used, but it is found 
not to be exactly the thing required. The French 
lie under the same inconvenience — if they did not, 
we should, long ago, have had an appropriate word . 



SYNONYMOUS WORDS. 169 

But it is very important, that you should be 
relieved from those doubts that frighten the un- 
practised writer, respecting the precise and exclu- 
sive meanings of words. You may rest assured that 
the very first authors who treat the subject, do not 
— cannot confine themselves to their own express 
rules and doctrines. They only go as close as they 
can, and more will not, certainly, be expected from 
you. Neither are you to hesitate about using well- 
known words which you cannot find in the diction- 
ary. Lexicographers are unwilling to take the 
responsibility of introducing what all their predeces- 
sors rejected. This reluctance gives rise to curious 
omissions. Respectability, unconnected, and pedes- 
trian, though used by the most eminent writers, were 
without a place till Todd inserted them, and also 
realization, at his own risk, in his valuable edition of 
Johnson, and we may now calculate on their gene- 
ral recognition. He has also the good sense to 
insert amelioration, for who would now think of 
seeking it under the letter M ? In other languages 
we have the same squeamishness. I believe tha 
none of our Latin dictionaries give gravamen, 
although it is a word commonly known even to 
plain English scholars — it is inserted, however, 
without scruple, by Facciolati. The unnatural 
jumbling together of I and J, and U and V, 
remains still as our reproach. We might, surely, very 
safely depart from a custom that can serve no pur- 
pose, except to render search the more difficult. 
On the Continent they have, generally, long since 



170 SYNONYMOUS WORDS. 

made the proper separation, and we would only 
shew our sense of propriety, by abandoning this 
miserable compliment to our " venerable ancestors." 
Only a few here have complied with my hint. 

Though it may be right that new words, or new 
applications of them, should be some years on 
probationary abeyance, before admission into our 
dictionaries, yet you must go on like other persons. 
Mr. Walker, who overcame more of those scruples 
than, I believe, any of his fellow-labourers, un- 
warily uses words in the explanatory parts of his 
dictionary, to which he nevertheless refuses a regu- 
lar place ! Of those, I once noted I think five, 
and I regret that I have lost the list, but I recol- 
lect that respectability was one of them. Now, 
when a dictionary-maker can, through mere force of 
general usage, so far forget himself, surely you need 
not give yourself any uneasiness. 

It may be right to remark upon the fashions of 
particular application. I have told you that orifice 
and opening are precisely the same. So they are, 
but fashion has decreed that we must not say the 
orifice of a discourse, although we know that it is 
the same thing as opening. The people may con- 
gregate or assemble, but you cannot politely say 
that ladies congregated at a ball. You may dislike 
the paucity or fewness of directions, but not so as 
to information. Here, paucity assumes the charac- 
ter of scarcity, which fewness cannot. Fashion has 
fixed it, that paucity is both fewness and scarcity, 
and even deficiency, while fewness is condemned 



SYNONYMOUS WORDS. 171 

never to rise above its original signification. This 
is the reason why you must say the paucity, not the 
fewness, of information — and thus you see the pri- 
vileges that classical words obtain, even when quite 
unnecessary, as a kind of bonus or interest for the 
loan of them. 

In the seventh paragraph of Chapter VIII. I 
gave you a good hint respecting synonymous words. 
It is very necessary, that you divest yourself of 
those fears, with which the writings of some un- 
questionably learned authors would fill your mind. 
When men engage in nice distinctions, they com- 
monly travel more into the regions of curiosity than 
of utility — they forget the impossibility of practical 
application to the purposes of life. An inch may 
be divided into a thousand parts, but we shall find a 
hundred too much for the naked eye. There are 
some who think they see, and would persuade us 
that there is, a difference between cumulate, monish, 
commix, commixion, disherit, mislike, unequalness, 
over-burden, cotemporary , and accumulate, admonish, 
mix, mixture, disinherit, dislike, inequality, over- 
load, contemporary, nay, between though and 
although, while and whilst, among and amongst, till 
and until. But, supposing a difference to exist, it 
is too subtile for the ablest management. I once 
heard an inveterate Latinist assert, that we ought 
to have responsible, as well as responsible, because 
their meanings were not strictly alike, according to 
their respective derivation ! Such a purist could 
write a book upon the distinctive characters of vel 



172 SYNONYMOUS WORDS. 

and aut, or sed and autem, but after all it would 
come to this — the Romans knew, by habit, when 
one fell in more elegantly than the other, as an 
Englishman prefers saying The House of God to 
God's House, though he knows that both are 
equally proper. Our dictionaries have a horror of 
giving the same meaning to two words, even where 
there is not a shade of difference, and this greatly 
embarrasses the humble or diffident writer. 

But you can never expect to write well, or with 
spirit, if you have a poor notion of our language. 
Let no one persuade you, that it is inferior to others, 
in every respect. Our little conjugators express 
the most minute shades and distinctions —some- 
times to a nicety that even the Greek and Latin, 
with all their pompous terminations, cannot approach. 
Those classical tongues are compelled to say, Will 
I give John the horse ? unless they turn it other- 
wise by, Are you willing that I should give ? No 
language in the world, except your own, has the 
beautiful and singularly expressive shall as a con- 
jugator, for the German sollen, though an auxiliary 
verb, is, in many instances, more confined in its 
application. Were I addressing a grammarian, I 
would shew our superiority in many other respects. 
Hear, however, what is said by Barberi in his 
admirable Italian grammar — admirable indeed, for 
it leaves most grammars far behind, in accurate and 
profound reasoning. He is speaking of those pests 
of speech called genders and articles : — 

The English are the only people who have not thi 






GENITIVE COMMA. 173 

inconvenience in their language. They make no dis- 
tinction in the genders of things, and they have only 
one article for all nouns, whether singular or plural, 
which is very rational, and, above all, extremely 
convenient. 

Should any foolish pedant annoy you, about the 
superior beauties of the classical languages, desire 
him to translate into Latin or Greek, " cloud-capt 
tower," or " baseless fabric." He may, with 
many words, give the sense, in a roundabout way, 
but as to energy and conciseness, they are confined 
to the English. Tell him then, that his learning 
is only a burthen, not a service to him, since it 
does not enable him to see the beauties of his 
mother tongue. The truth is, that each language 
has its own particular and exclusive advantages, 
and to form one, combining the excellences of all 
others, is beyond our reach. 



CHAPTER TWELFTH. 



Genitive Comma. 

This, usually called Apostrophe, as John's book, 
for The book of John, is too well known to require 
explanation, but there are other applications of it 
not so commonly understood, and the description of 
which may be acceptable. 



174 GENITIVE COMMA. 

Names ending with s have the genitive sign only, 
without any additional s, thus, Achilles 5 wrath, 
Xerxes' folly, and they are pronounced as they now 
appear. For it is with that view that Achilles's 
wrath, or Xerxes's folly, is exploded, as otherwise 
we should pronounce Achilleses and Xerxeses, 
which would offend the ear even in prose. Yet 
this rule must be occasionally infringed. We must 
exercise some taste, for it would be barbarous to 
say James' book. Why it would sound as if book 
were the surname, and that we were speaking of 
one James Book, and we therefore write in the 
ancient way, James's book. It is remarkable that 
Charles presents no objection, for Charles* book 
sounds very well. We must, I say, exercise our 
taste, even with classical names, for Miletus' anger 
certainly reads queerish. How different in fullness 
of sound from Hercules' anger ! We might say 
Miletuses rancour, but who could bear to utter 
Sophocleses or Euripideses tragedies ? 

The printer's address, means the address of the 
printer, while the printers' address, means the ad- 
dress of a body of printers, or of more than one of 
that trade. This distinguishing of singular and 
plural is rather a modern application of the apostro- 
phe, and, as it is found useful, you should know its 
management. We write, as our forefathers did, A 
day's work, but for the plural, Two days' work, and 
so on all similar occasions. You must observe to 
write proper names ending with s in full, as Evans, 
for Evan's Grand Hotel would signify the Grand 



ELLIPSES. 175 

Hotel of Evan, but Evans's or Evans' Grand Hotel 
ensures correctness. It is quite a matter of choice 
as to the two last— you may write which you please. 
Mr. Jenkins' horse is the horse of Mr. Jenkins, 
but Mr. Jenkin's horse is the horse of Mr. Jenkin. 



CHAPTER THIRTEENTH. 



Ellipses. 

Ordinary language, as distinguished from the tire- 
some precision of legal acts or documents, is made 
up of ellipses or omissions. Thus, " Charles was a 
spirited, liberal, and humane governor," if put in 
extenso or at length would be, " Charles was a 
spirited governor, Charles was a liberal governor, 
and Charles was a humane governor." You see 
that this, while it is not a whit more clear than the 
first, is disagreeably tautological, and the ellipsis is, 
therefore, a great advantage to speech, whether 
oral or written. 

Now I will shew, how you can turn this ellipsis 
and extenso to a profitable purpose. There is a 
very common error, one that you probably make 
yourself, " Between you and I," and which nine in 
ten say, though it is an unpardonable blunder. Put 
it in extenso, and the cloven foot immediately ap- 
pears, for it would then read " Between you, and 
between I," and, as no ear could bear between J, 



176 ELLIPSES. 

you naturally say between me. Thus you find out, 
that '-'Between you and me" is the correct and 
grammatical expression. 

There is another common error, for, unfortunately, 
vastly more speakers are wrong than right, "Him 
and I went to Highgate." Try this by the extenso 
test, and you discover that Him should be He, for 
you surely would not say Him w r ent to Highgate. 
But we mostly hear " Him and me went to High- 
gate," in which is an additional blunder of me for 
I. Ask yourself " Did me go Highgate ?" and, 
if you have any ear at all, it must revolt against 
such a sound. " My uncle gave cousin James and 
I a christmas-box," is a very common mode of 
expression, for it has nothing harsh to the ear, but 
it is quite different in extenso, " My uncle gave 
cousin James a christmas-box, and my uncle gave 
me a christmas-box," for I am sure you would not 
say gave I a christmas-box. Some persons, who are 
filled with doubts on all occasions, will contend that 
christmas-boxes should be put instead of a christmas- 
box, otherwise it might be supposed that the uncle 
gave only one christmas-box for the use of his two 
nephews. The folly of such a cavil is shewn by 
the extenso test, thus, " My uncle gave cousin 
James christmas-boxes, and my uncle gave me 
christmas-boxes." You see, therefore, that the 
ordinary expression is correct, for it implies that 
the uncle gave each a christmas-box. But our 
caviller will say, Suppose a horse instead of a 
christmas-box, which might be given for the joint 






ELLIPSES. 177 

use of both nephews ? I answer, that in such 
case it should be so specified, or the sentence should 
be turned with a different construction. 

But take care ! your extenso test will not always 
avail. Suppose you say, " Peter and I was at 
Gravesend yesterday," and that some one observes 
it is wrong, and you supply the ellipses, it will then 
read, " Peter was at Gravesend yesterday, and I 
was at Gravesend yesterday." Now that is excel- 
lent grammar as it stands, but not as you expressed 
it, because where only one verb was used to denote 
the action of both Peter and yourself, it required 
the plural were. So, " He and the child is out " 
reads correctly when at length, " He is out, and 
the child is out," but the first construction requires 
are for the same reason that was should be were in 
in the preceding example. " John and I done it 
easily," would give in extenso, " John done it 
easily, and I done it easily," which is shocking to a 
grammatical ear — done must be replaced by did. 

Nor must the ellipsis be abused, however neces- 
sary it may be to obviate useless and disagreeable 
tautology. " He went to Spain by sea, and Por- 
tugal by land." Here the omission of to before 
Portugal is contemptible, and no one could think 
of it but those sorry writers whom I described in 
Chapter III., as labouring under the fear of repeat- 
ing a word. No. The ellipsis is intended to give 
energy and vigour, not weakness to our language. 

We daily and hourly hear blunders about the past 
participle and past tense, by putting one for the 



178 ELLIPSES. 

other, where the verb is irregular. Thus, I have 
often went there, should be gone. After he had 
sang, should be sang, though you may say indif- 
ferently, After he sang or sung, because that is 
the past tense, but had requires the past participle, 
which is confined to sung. This must be drank off 
at once, should be drunk, but They drunk a great 
deal, should be drank. I seen him often, should 
be saw, but you may say I have seen him often. 
After we had took in some provisions, should be 
taken — leave out had, and took w r ill be good. The 
bread has fell, should befallen, and take care that 
you never use felled, in this case, as it applies only 
to knocking down generally, or to cutting down a 
tree. The building was began last year, should 
be begun — you may say, They began the building, 
but not they begun. His coat was tore, should be 
torn. That was well wrote, should be written. 
He swum like a cork, should be swam, but say 
He could have swum over it easily. Ministers are 
shook, should be shaken, but you must say, That 
shook ministers. After I had rang. Look to 
what I said about sang, for it applies here through- 
out. Tom run it before, should be ran, but you 
may say Tom had run. He has chose the white 
one, should be chosen, but leave out has and chose 
may stand. He was learned to read very early. 
This blunder arises from misplacing the verbs to 
learn and to teach. Here it should he taught, which 
is the past participle of to teach, but if ivas be 
omitted the phrase will be correct. 



LONG-WINDEDNESS. 179 

If you ask how such errors are to be avoided, I 
can only answer, that, without some attention or 
trouble, you cannot expect to do anything well. 
I have taken not a little pains to explain how you 
may, without being a grammarian, write intelligibly, 
and without that repulsive verbosity so common to 
the unlearned, but some knowledge of grammar is 
necessary, otherwise you will be in doubt or astray 
on the most trifling occasions. Those last-men- 
tioned errors arise, not from forgetting but from 
misapplying two kinds of words, the past tense and 
past participle ! I shall again call your attention 
to the subject, towards the conclusion of this work. 



CHAPTER FOURTEENTH. 



Very remarkable instance of Long-windedness. 

I thought that I had exhausted this subject. 
Yes, I believed that I had furnished the most 
glaring examples, but here is one that eclipses 
them all, and I give it because you cannot have a 
better lesson. It is from the History of England 
(Cabinet Cyclopaedia) by Sir James Mackintosh, 
and I copy from a critique in the Monthly Review 
of August, 1830:— 

The king, with angry murmurs, turned aside, and 
Robert, whose spirit was awakened by this unbrotherly 
repulse, returned to the duchy to try his fortune, 



180 LONG-WINDEDNESS. 

tv hither Henry pursued him, and after an obstinate 
conflict at Tinchebrai, on the 27th of September, 1106, 
in which Robert made the last display of his brilliant 
qualities as a commander and a soldier, he was com- 
pletely routed, and sent prisoner to England ; where 
his imprisonment appears first to have been mild, 
but having yielded to the impulse of nature in attempt- 
ing to escape from prison, by the command of his un- 
relenting brother, his eyes were put out, and after pass- 
ing near thirty years of blindness in several fortresses, 
he died in 1135, at Cardiff Castle in Glamorganshire, 
at the age of eighty, when all the other chiefs who had 
shared the glory of rescuing Jerusalem had been laid low. 

The Editor of the Review comments, in strong 
terms, on the numerous faults of this sentence, and 
thus concludes his strictures, " Finally we would 
ask whether ' all the other chiefs ' had been laid 
low in the year 1135, or at the age of eighty, or 
both ? We have seldom seen a worse piece of 
writing than this, in whatever way it be contem- 
plated." It is certainly a reproach to Sir James, 
for, supposing him in a hurry when writing, it is 
to be presumed that he corrected his own proof 
sheets, and then he had an opportunity of seeing 
this unwieldy sentence in all its deformity. Such 
an exhibition is calculated to injure even a respect- 
able author like him, because it might prejudice 
the public against his style, while it would probably 
ruin one who was struggling for fame. Now I 
shall offer no amendment. Study my directions for 
correcting long-windedness, and you can make this 
crude mass of confused relatives perfectly intel- 



ANTIQUITY OF THE SEMI-COLON. 181 

ligible, and pleasing to read, by a proper distribu- 
tion of the members, and a little exercise of judg- 
ment in connexion. This, I say over again, is the 
best way to improve your own style. 



CHAPTER FIFTEENTH. 



Antiquity of the Semi-colon. 

Having hazarded my opinion in Chapter VII., page 
110, that the true and unmistakeable semi-colon 
appeared about 1500, and, as the " Book of Ar- 
magh " has many instances of that stop, I think it 
is right to say something more on the subject. 

In May, 1831, this celebrated book was sold by 
auction, at 23, Suffolk Street, Dublin, by Mr. 
Edward Maguire, for 3907. exclusive of King's 
duty, \0d. in the pound. The catalogue announced 
it as a MS. of the seventh century, on the authority 
of Sir William Betham, Ulster King at arms, who 
devoted the entire of the 2nd vol. of his work " Irish 
Antiquarian Researches," to " a detailed history of 
this precious document." He describes it as in the 
Irish character, mixed with Greek capitals, and to 
be everywhere perfect, except in two instances, and 
11 a few pages w r hich have suffered so much by 
attrition as to deface the writing." What follows 
was given as extracted from the catalogue of " the 
learned Humphrey Lhwyd," who, after stating 



182 ANTIQUITY OF THE SEMI-COLON. 

that it contains the Canons of the Evangelists, 
says :— 

This book was formerly held in great estimation by 
the Irish, so much so, that the family commonly called 
Mac Maor, in English Mac Mayre, had their name 
from the custody of this book. For Maor in Irish is 
Keeper ; and Maor ?za-Ceanon, is Keeper of the Canons ; 
all that family were commonly so called, and they 
formerly held from the See of Armagh eight townlands 

in the county of , called the lands of Bally maire, 

by the tenure of this book ; in whose hands it remained 
during many ages, until Florence Mac Mayre went to 
England in the year 1680. That he should give evi- 
dence (which I doubt the truth of) against Oliver 
Plunket, D.D. the Roman Catholic Prelate of Ireland, 
who undeservedly, as is believed, was executed. But 
Mayre being deficient of money at his death, this 
manuscript was left as a pledge for five pounds ; fortu- 
nately, it afterwards came to the hands of Arthur 
Brownlow, Esq., who, with considerable labour, placed 
the loose leaves in their proper order, and put folios at 
the top of each page, and other marks in the margin 
to distinguish the chapters, and had the leaves so 
arranged in their original binding, (as it now appears) 
and caused them to be preserved together with a certain 
bull of the Roman Pontiff found with the same. 

Now this book has numerous semi-colons, not in 
that imperfect or doubtful manner that is sometimes 
seen in MSS. or books of the fifteenth century, and 
which seem like colons with the bottom point acci- 
dently lengthened or blotted by the pen, or blurred 
in the printing, but as well formed and defined as 
at the present day. Is it, therefore, of the seventh 



ANTIQUITY OF THE SEMI-COLON. 183 

century ? That there was an original of great 
antiquity, appears incontestable, but it is also highly 
probable that, where eight townlands depended 
on its safe keeping, the Mac Mayres would not 
feel easy if trusting to it entirely, and that they got 
a copy made out as a security in case of accident. 
About that there could be no difficulty. The Irish 
were always remarkable for their taste in caligraphy, 
and, even now, many of their humblest country 
schoolmasters have a surprising command of the 
pen, and write beautiful hands. If the transcrip- 
tion were made at the commencement of 1500, the 
copyist might easily mistake a rubbed or injured 
colon for a semi-colon, as that stop was then com- 
monly used, and he would insert it without hesita- 
tion. Those who will not allow this view of the 
case must be prepared to prove, that the semi -colon 
was known 1200 years ago, and that would I believe 
be somewhat difficult. 

There is another point to be settled also. Is the 
book form 1200 years old ? We know that the 
Greeks and Romans were ignorant of it, for at 
Herculaneum and Pompeii, though some thousand 
calcined or scorched rolls were found, there was no 
book. When was that form invented ? We are 
told that Mr. Brownlow, in getting the Armagh 
work put in proper repair, had the leaves arranged 
in their original binding, as it now appears. " Bind- 
ing !" Is there any binding of the seventh century ? 
It is certain that the book form or plan, of leaves 
stitched together at the back, was invented a con- 

l2 



184 ANTIQUITY OF THE SEMI-COLON. 

siderable time before binding, the first attempts at 
which were very rude indeed. Even the binding 
of only four centuries past is in the humblest state 
that can be well imagined — very humble truly 
compared to that of our Book of Armagh, a part of 
which is mentioned in the work itself to be written 
by Saint Patrick, though the rest is referred to the 
seventh century. 

Perhaps I shall be censured for taking up any of 
my space with such a matter, which is purely his- 
torical, and which can be of no service to my readers 
for instructing them in punctuation. In my defence, 
I can only say that, as I could not well avoid 
alluding to its gradual improvements, so I could not, 
in justice to myself, avoid mentioning a work that 
so materially affected my observations. 



What if the book form should turn out to be an 
Irish invention ! This is no strained hyperbole, for 
we can see through the mists that obscure the 
remote History of Ireland, for want of an enlighten- 
ing Roman invasion, that it was a seat of learning 
when Britain, and the countries of the Continent, 
were, comparatively, without any literature. It 
appears that there are two other very ancient Irish 
MSS. in existence, of which Sir William Betham 
says, " The Psalter of Columbkill, written in the 
sixth century, is probably the oldest Irish MS. 
extant. The four gospels of Dimma, written early 
in the seventh century, is, perhaps, the oldest in 



A COMMON ERROR IN CONCORD. 185 

the pure Irish character." Now I conclude that 
those are books, because Sir William elsewhere 
calls the second " The Book of Dimma," I am 
aware of the story that the Athenians erected a 
statue to one Phigeatius for inventing books, but, 
if that be true, why were none found in Hercula- 
neum or Pompeii, since the Romans had every thing 
that the Greeks knew ? To prevent misconceptions, 
it may be right to premise that a booh should open 
at the side — the first step from the roll was no doubt 
by connecting the sheets or leaves at the top. 
Ireland can probably shew stronger claims to the 
discovery in question than any other country, and I 
begin to think that this digression will give rise to 
a literary agitation not a little interesting. 



CHAPTER SIXTEENTH. 



A common Error in Concord. 

My eye has just glanced at an advertisement be- 
ginning thus: — 

The great wonder of the age is, that Grimstone's 
Aromatic Regenerator has and will produce a new 
growth of human hair. 

The error here, in making has refer to produce, is 
sufficiently obvious. Yet, if it be excusable to err 
in good company, our advertiser may lawfully claim 
that indulgence, for it is truly surprising how pre- 

l 3 



186 A COMMON ERROR IN CONCORD. 

valent the same fault is in respectable works and 
newspapers. I am totally at a loss to account for 
men of erudition falling into this blunder. Surely 
they would not attempt to justify it by the Ellipsis, 
for, though that figure sanctions many omissions, it 
could never be strained so as to warrant the error 
in question. I am aware that writers, who like 
terseness, would very unwillingly set down " has 
produced, and will produce, " but, however inele- 
gant the iteration, it is preferable to the serious 
charge of bad grammar, which, except in very rare 
exigencies, is held to be unpardonable. 

We often see in books and newspapers expres- 
sions similar to " Such proceedings have and 
still cause great discontent," — " have and are pro- 
ductive of sickness," though this last is quite inex- 
cusable, inasmuch as it involves no repetition when 
in full, thus, "have been, and are, productive of 
sickness." But there is no licence whatever for 
such liberties. In page 52, it will be seen that I de- 
fend the omission of shillings, to save most disagree- 
able tautology, and I think few will object to that, 
but the case under present discussion is different. 
The greatest latitude allowed to the ellipsis I be- 
lieve is, where persons are referred to verbs with 
which they cannot agree, as when George IV. 
said, u Either Londonderry or I am mad," on re- 
marking something strange in that minister's man- 
ner, a few days before his unhappy suicide. But 
our grammarians, after much fruitless contention, 
have been forced to allow this faulty construction, 



A COMMON ERROR IN CONCORD. 187 

and the rule now is, that the verb agree with the 
last person mentioned as being the less repulsive to 
our ear. Indeed this concession could not be 
avoided, for it would be absolutely intolerable, in- 
stead of " John or I, or they are accountable for the 
expense," to say " John is, or I am, or they are, 
accountable for the expense.' ' It is quite clear that 
necessity alone authorized this breach of concord, 
but the case under consideration cannot plead any 
necessity. 

Since it occurs to me, I may mention another 
fault that occasionally appears in the London papers. 
In reporting the case of a man falling from drunken- 
ness or other cause, we read that he was laying in 
the gutter, or elsewhere. Laying what? This 
confounding of lie and lay, is discreditable to Eng- 
land, for it is remarkable that the error is unknown 
in Ireland, where the most ignorant man will say, 
He was lying in the gutter, The ship is lying at 
anchor, or The settlement still lies over. But I 
must remark that it is gradually disappearing from 
the London press, for we do not now see it near so 
frequently as we used only a few years past. There 
is indeed such literary ability brought to bear on the 
respectable papers, that they bid fair, at least in the 
leading articles, to be safe examples for good com- 
position, and most certainly for punctuation. To 
them we are indebted for all rational improvements 
in pointing — to our authors and grammar-writers 
we truly owe very little. 



188 A WORD UPON GRAMMAR. 



CHAPTER SEVENTEENTH. 



A word upon Grammar, 

I address you still , as supposing that you are un- 
acquainted with grammar, but, though I presume 
that you have been much assisted and encouraged 
by my instructions, you must be aware that some 
knowledge of it is necessary both for writing and 
speaking. Let me entreat you, therefore, to give it 
a little of your attention. Believe me that it is not, 
now, what it was when you were at school, for a 
great revolution in that department has taken place 
within the last few years. We are no longer ha- 
rassed and perplexed by half a dozen cases of nouns, 
nor are we any longer at the mercy of the mounte- 
banks, who for so many centuries worked on the 
plan, that Latin Was necessary for understanding 
our native language. In short, we have now English 
grammars — not Anglo-Latin grammars, such as you 
were tormented with at school. Every thing is, 
now, referred to the original constitution and genius 
of our own language. Our old grammarians used 
to tell us, that the reason we must say, It was I 
who conquered him, is because it is so in Latin, al- 
though the French, which has more of Roman con- 
struction than the English, requires, It was me who 
conquered him. But the new schoolmasters are 
abroad, and such nonsense will no longer avail. 



A WORD UPON GRAMMAR. 189 

I have been at some pains to dissipate your fears 
of taking up the pen, because you do not understand 
grammar, but think not that it can be dispensed 
with, or that it is unnecessary. You have now no 
excuse whatever for ignorance on the subject, be- 
cause there are grammars that you could easily 
understand, though they may be difficult for a boy. 
Try and get a knowledge of the past participle, as 
distinguished from the past time or tense, of the 
irregular verbs, for it is here that the most disgrace- 
ful blunders are made, such as those on which I 
touched in Chapter XIII. Those who don't know T 
them discover their ignorance in the shortest con- 
versation, for they enter into all kinds of discourse. 
Yet, though there are 180 of them, I find that there 
are only about 50 commonly misused, and surely that 
would be no great task to master, especially when 
the thing is of such preponderating importance. 
I know of no literary labor that would be so well 
paid, for, with a knowledge of the irregular verbs, 
you could generally express yourself correctly, and 
pass very well when conversing with grammarians. 

Our verbs are simplicity itself when compared 
with those of the French or other languages, which 
will have forty different terminations w 7 here ours 
are as efficiently worked with only half a dozen. 
Foreigners are surprised at their extraordinary 
plainness, and easily learn them, and it is a great 
reproach to us that they are so generally misapplied. 
Ignorance of the subjunctive mood may be excus- 
able, because to understand it requires some attention 



190 A WOED UPON GRAMMAR. 

and study, but it is really pitiable to find respectable 
men making gross blunders in the use of two words, 
forming the participle and past tense, and the func- 
tions of which are so simple as to be within the 
comprehension of a child. I must impress upon you 
this fact, that every one whose native language is 
English knows them all. You are not, therefore, 
called on to get off anything by heart — you are 
only asked to give two kinds of words, with which 
you are already well acquainted, their proper place, 
and any grown-up person, who aspires to rise at all 
above the vulgar, ought to feel ashamed of being 
ignorant on such a simple matter. Besides, in the 
course of your investigation you would acquire as it 
were insensibly, without any additional trouble, 
some important information about the functions of 
other parts of the verbs. When you see do, did, 
done — see, saw, seen — draw, drew, drawn — choose, 
chose, chosen — begin, began, begun, and when 
you know that they signify the present and past 
times, and the past participles, you w r ould not 
shock a grammatical ear by saying I does, because, 
as you mean to express present time, you see that 
do represents it for yourself, though he requires 
does. For the same reason you would not say, 1 
sees, I goes, or I says, and you would avoid that 
barbarism drawed, because you perceive that there 
is no such word at all in the list, and in short you 
would, in spite of ye*Tself, extend your knowledge 
of grammar considerably. You may be quite certain 
that, when you have a clear conception of past time 



A WORD UPON GRAMMAR. 191 

and participle usage, you will often wonder how 
you could ever, even for a moment, have been dis- 
mayed by such a phantom. 

The difficulties of grammar are gradually lessen- 
ing, and there is a prospect of its being ultimately 
rendered a very easy study. Towards the close of 
last century, Mr. Home Tooke published two 
quarto volumes which he oddly called Diversions 
of Purley, because he wrote them at a country- 
house so called. The object of the work was, to 
prove that language has but two parts of speech, 
nouns and verbs, and he certainly brought forward 
arguments well calculated to make the other seven 
totter. He completely proved that if, which the 
grammarians always place among their " conjunc- 
tions, " is the past participle or the imperative of to 
grant, admit or allow, as "If you go, so will I," 
implies nothing more than " Granted," or " Grant 
that you go, so will I," and he further proved that 
^ was originally a verb signifying to grant. His 
success here was most complete, and, could he have 
established all his points on equally strong grounds, 
he must have overthrown the established system of 
grammar, and simplified it in an extraordinary man- 
ner. Even as it is his theory is gradually gaining 
adherents, and I know that there are schoolmasters 
who would teach it, only they fear an outcry that 
might be injurious to themselves. 

I am strongly inclined to ^commend two gram- 
mars in our schools — one for children, and another 
for the more advanced youths. A grammar lately 



19„ A WORD UPON GRAMMAR. 

published is now before me, and though it professes 
to be extremely simple, and adapted for children, 
it is complicated enough for mature age. It has an 
appalling number of pronouns, tenses to verbs, and 
other extended classifications, that demand a steady 
judgment, and which it would be absurd to expect 
that a child under twelve should comprehend. This 
accounts for the vast numbers we meet who have 
learned English grammar, and who are quite igno- 
rant of its use. Too much was forced on their 
immature minds at first, and the consequence was 
that they never understood the parts of speech as 
respects their functions. I merely throw out this 
hint, because what I recommend is much wanted, 
and because I think that it would be justly appre- 
ciated by a discerning public. 



THE END. 



London: Printed by W. Clowes and Sons, Stamford Street. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



Hi 111,1 



003 331 485 1 



